Friday, April 19, 2013

Quick Takes: I'm Going Green!





1) No worries, I'm not going green like this. I'm going green to support a company that has the guts to fight Obama's HHS mandate and is now paying the price:

"A principled, 45 year independent manufacturer of natural food, offering 300+ authentic, organic, traditional, 
kosher, pure and purifying foods."


It all started when I read this piece, from Simcha Fisher:

Well, we keep hearing about all the health benefits of eating clean, pure, organic food. I guess we can add "extreme flexibility of intellect" to the list of benefits of all that clean eating, because a large portion of Eden Foods' clean-living clientele is flipping out over [CEO Michael] Potter's decision to sue the government over the HHS Mandate. Yep, organophages are twisting themselves into mental pretzels:  they love, love, love to make sure that everything they put into their mouths is clean, clean, clean, and that their lifestyle does nothing but good, good, good for the environment . . . but they hate, hate, hate the idea that Eden Foods refuses to pay for the very hormones that pollute the waterways and cause cancer.
Read it all, here.

I spent part of the day on Eden Food's facebook page, not only learning more about their yummy-looking food, but jumping into some lively debates. The boycott by the left is in full swing, and the writer for Salon.com who started this crusade against Potter has gleefully followed up, hopeful that the company may now be in deep trouble. All Catholics (and any lover of religious freedom and rights of conscience) should consider patronizing Eden Foods. Do what I did and use this store locator to find out which grocery stores near you carry the Eden line.

Please also sign this quick and easy statement of support (and look how aesthetically pleasing it is! I'd love to know who set that up!).

Finally, pray that all the many companies and organizations suing the Obama administration prevail in court.


2) I don't have any profound words to say about the horror that we witnessed at the Boston Marathon on Monday. It hit a lot of folks close to home, including me. I spent four years in Boston for college, I have an eight-year-old son like one of the victims, and I have a nineteen-year-old son like one of the murderers.

Evil is a privation of good. The human heart is made for goodness, but goodness cannot stay where it is not willed and welcomed. I am heartsick about the evil we saw play out, but I am not sure that I'm shocked anymore when evil happens. The human condition has not changed. Human nature has not "evolved". Sin is as prevalent and as ugly as ever, and the bloody murder of innocents has been with us since Cain killed his brother Abel. We need to stop being shocked that evil lurks in the hearts of men, including our own hearts. The counter to evil is to fill the privation with sanctity, virtue, love, truth, and beauty. We need grace and goodness and self-sacrifice. We need offered suffering. We need the witness of more saints.

None of that can come without God. The only answer to the massacre is the Person of Jesus Christ. There is ultimately nothing else and no other hope. But that's okay, because He is the only hope we need. He more than suffices.

"The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." -- John 1:5


3) In the last post, I included a heartbreaking photo of a beautiful little boy who was viewed as so much garbage and brutally cast off. In this post, I am including a breathtaking photo of a child who is just like the other boy (except for "wantedness", of course).

As you can see, this child is still in his amniotic sac (an incredibly rare situation) and at the moment this photo is taken, the baby is still completely dependent on his mother, not yet having taken his first independent breath. He is quite comfortable, unaware that he is even outside of Mama's body.

Seems an ethical dilemma for abortion advocates. Since he is still fully attached to his mother, even receiving oxygen from her body, is he a human person yet? Does he have the right to remain alive and unharmed? Some would argue no. But we all know better. Heck, even the abortion defenders know better. That's what makes the debate so chilling.


Photo posted at Online for Life


4) How about some comic relief? If you have seen the Dove Real Beauty Sketches for women, you will really want to see the one for men!



Classic!


5) If you're like me, you want to sit at the feet of virtuous intellectuals and soak up their wisdom (while looking at a really elegant-looking blog!). To that end, you really need to be reading and sharing The Public Discourse.

Here's what they're about:
Public Discourse is an online publication of the Witherspoon Institute that seeks to enhance the public understanding of the moral foundations of free societies by making the scholarship of the fellows and affiliated scholars of the Institute available and accessible to a general audience.
Guys, keeping this nation moral and free depends on an educated citizenry. Add this to your blog roll, and read it! Yes, there are a lot of smarty-pants who write for it, but they make it easy to understand. We need to be taught well, and we need to teach our children.


6) An atheist commenter on this blog once implied that must be embarrassed about the Church's teaching on the reality of Satan. I assured him that nothing could be further from the truth. I know that Evil One is very, very real, and I am not ashamed to say it. Neither is Pope Francis:


Satan has a sneaky way of enlisting folks who deny his existence, and the Holy Father is not about to let the Prince of Darkness slip around unannounced and unnoticed. Thank you, Papa!


7) I am sure you all remember Carla and her beautiful family. Our hearts broke when their precious Henry went to Heaven on November 28, 2012.



But now by the grace of God and surely Henry's intercession, they are going back to Henry's country to adopt this beautiful sibling group!


In Mama Carla's words:

It started with Henry. We brought him home in September of 2011 at the age of 1. He was very sick and had a much more severe and rare disability than was originally thought. We loved him through ICU admissions and surgeries and therapies and learning how to eat and clap and laugh. He was our precious youngest of 7 and the treasure of our entire family.

He died on November 28, 2012, a few months after his 2nd birthday.

We grieved. We knew his short life made a difference from the hundreds of emails and cards and Facebook and blog tributes to him. We knew he changed us.

Now God has shown us our next adventure. Not to replace Henry. Never that. But to give AND receive love and family in a different way. To a sibling group that DESERVES to stay together…with a baby girl who needs a little extra help, and for us to figure out exactly what help she needs.

We are up for the challenge and we know Henry is cheering us on from heaven. Thank you so much for your prayer and financial support to help us bring ALL THREE home.

Follow their journey on Carla's blog, below, and please use the yellow "Donate" button on the top right to support them in bringing this precious sibling group into their loving home! 


Bringing Henry Home


+++++++

On to another orphan update, this time a sad one:

The Russian ban on American adoptions has devastated many of my friends (some of whom, like Malcolm's committed family, had already traveled and met their child). After some initial hope for a diplomatic solution, it now appears that there is no road open for those families to reach their children. The grief is great, and there is nothing more to do but pray for a miracle. 

Meanwhile, Kara -- who still fiercely loves but now has to let go of precious Nico -- is committed to adopting Colton, from another Eastern European country. Please consider helping her by entering the amazing "Happiest Place Giveaway"!

You can enter without donating (though your odds increase if you do), and you simply must check out the prizes! Click Colton's cute face for details:




Thanks for all your love and prayers for the orphans and their families.



And thanks to Jen -- the new mommy who now has her baby boy HOME! -- for hosting.




.

133 comments:

  1. Leila you write'
    " don't have any profound words to say about the horror that we witnessed at the Boston Marathon on Monday."

    I wish you had left it at that, but you had to go an attach your agenda to it.
    Yes it was an evil act, but unlike you I think we should continue to be shocked by evil acts.

    And those who may want to discuss this with me please observe the following:
    1. Live in currently or be from Massachusetts (Boston even better).
    2. Have spent yesterday on lock down, have relatives or friends just blocks away from where suspect #2 was found.
    3. Have spend hours on Monday, calling and texting friends and loved ones to see if they were safe. And receiving calls from worried friends and relatives.
    4. Have friends who worked with one of those killed.
    5. Have a friend that was at the finish line, who saw things that have disturbed him greatly.

    My boss at the inn I work at part time (two blocks away from the finish line) was on her way to the finish line with her grandchildren. I am thankful she was not quicker getting there. My husband was at one of the local hospitals, he has horror stories to tell. He went back to Boston to work at the hospital during the lock down because he could and knew many would not be able to. Several friends were in the city working, seeing the sox or watching the marathon.

    Is this emotional? You bet it is.

    So next time you find yourself with no profound words, well why not just say nothing. Sure I didnt have to read it, but you put it here for us to read.

    In case you didn't get the implication I believe that this had nothing to do with god, either his absence like you claim, or his wrath like the westboro idiots claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't think Leila was pushing an agenda at all. She was explaining how she understands evil.

      (While you disqualified so many people from even responding... I'm here in Boston. I spent yesterday in lockdown. A police officer from my college died. There were shootings just outside a building where I go daily. So yes, I understand.)

      Delete
    2. Thank you, Sawako, and I am so sorry for all the trauma that you and the people of Boston have endured.

      Seeing the photo of little Martin Richard in his white First Communion suit and holding his First Communion banner is both unbearably heartbreaking and supernaturally comforting at the same time. Praise God for the grace of his family throughout all of this, as in a way they seem to be comforting the world. And may God rest the souls of the three others brutally killed, two beautiful young women and your dedicated MIT officer, and may He comfort all those injured and affected. Sin is ugly and dark, but love is more powerful than any evil. For at least a time, the churches of Boston will be filled. May the grace of God abound.

      Alan, I am grateful for your partner's work at the hospital. My own father was a doctor in Viet Nam, piecing people together for years, and I understand from him that it is hard to see that kind of violence and trauma. Many thoughts and prayers go out to you and the others in the area.

      And, I stand by every word that I said.

      Delete
  2. That picture of the baby in the sac is amazing. It makes me wonder all over again what the difference is for the pro-choice people--the difference between a baby in the womb in the sac or the baby out of the womb but in the sac. It truly does not make any sense to me.

    Loved the video, and so happy for Carla!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alan and others. I too live near Boston. My father grew up on Mt. Auburn St. 1/4 mile from where the second suspect was found. Most of my extended family live in Watertown...the gunfight with suspect 1 occurred right in front of my cousin's house! Right in front of her! I too had many loved ones affected by this, but when I read what Leila wrote it showed me that she understands the horrible nature of evil and how it corrupts even the most innocuous of people if given the chance. By mentioning her two sons, she shows she understands not only the heartache of that family who lost their little son in the bombing, but also the tragedy of the transformation of Dzhokar. He too was once a baby...once a young boy, full of dreams and love...

    Leila understands that we all have the capacity to do evil...the minute we forget that we are doomed. Have you never done anything evil in your life Alan? Perhaps the evil I have committed and continue to (sometimes) is more mundane and subtle than killing and maiming people, but I know it for what it is...laziness and ego and sometimes cowardice....When I review my faults in prayer...I am constantly reminded of how totally imperfect I am, and how difficult it is to be good...really good. There are times in my life, when, if the circumstances had been different, I shudder to thing of the evil that I could have done.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mary, that is so beautiful and eloquent. And true. Thank you for saying it better than I could.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There are a lot of people to feel sorry for in the whole Boston bombings and shootings, and I also feel sorry for the suspects' parents who are so far a way trying to make sense of their sons' alleged activities.

    Is that picture of the baby from a c-section? Does that baby gets to live? Maybe the baby opened his (her?) eyes just then, noticed a change in scenery and thought, "Hey, a womb with a view." : )

    Luckily plenty of stores near me sell Eden products, so I will be sure to look for them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sawoko
    I'm sorry you had to endure that.
    To me it's still an agenda. Yes evil was committed that day. I just don't think god had anything to do with it, either through his absence or wrath. Those men (allegedly) did this.
    My friends daughter was in a dorm near one of the gun battles. Her fathers had to ignore the lockdown to go get her. I know how scared she was. So I understand a little what you are going through.
    This is why I excluded those who are not from Boston. I understand so many others feel our pain, but at this time what will work best is that they give their sympathies, but refrain from attaching blame or (as I see it) pushing their agenda. (ps agenda is a word they use far too often for my kind, so I find it very appropriate to use on them, and like Leila I will stand by my words)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Leila, thanks.
    He is my husband, like it or not. He is not just a partner. (me pushing my agenda.)

    Mary
    I don't know if I have done evil. But if I have it has been my actions, and mine alone. Not god, not the devil. Mine.
    My point is that many good folks don't need or believe in god. Or Jesus Christ. And they are still good. So for good to triumph god does not need to be involved. And that is what I got out of what Leila was trying to say. That without god good can not triumph.
    If I am wrong in that I apologize.

    ReplyDelete

  8. "So for good to triumph god does not need to be involved."

    Alan this is a massive untruth. You may believe it, but I cannot let it stand without response. It is society's biggest lie, and it's a frightening, horrible one.

    Everyone needs God. Everyone needs Jesus Christ. Even if they do not know it.

    Yes, without God good cannot triumph. Not ever. Not ever.

    Can people without God do good things? Of course, but the source of any good thing is God, even the things that godless people do. Nothing good can be done apart from God. We cannot even take our next breath apart from God.

    "I don't know if I have done evil."

    You don't know if you have ever done anything wrong in your life? You have never chosen anything but perfect virtue in every word, thought, and deed in all your years? Alan, all of us are sinners. I sin every single day. I have yet to meet a perfect person in my life, even those I consider saintly.

    "But if I have it has been my actions, and mine alone. Not god, not the devil. Mine."

    Yes, of course! We are fully culpable for our willfully chosen sins. We will be judged and held responsible for every sin.

    This is a Catholic-owned blog and I will continue to apply Catholic thought and teaching in every post and every comment. Blessed John Paul II said that the biggest sin of our day is to have lost the sense of sin.

    The Catechism on sin:

    Sin is an offence against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is a failure in genuine love for God and neighbour cuased by a perverse attachment to certain goods.... It has been defined [by St Augustine] as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."

    Sin is an offence against God.... Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods," knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to the contempt of God."


    In the next comment, I am going to excerpt some of Blessed JPII's words on the loss of the sense of sin.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I encourage every Catholic to read the link in its entirety:

    http://www.catholic-pages.com/morality/sin.asp

    Here is Blessed John Paul the Great:

    Why has this [loss of a sense of sin] happened in our time? A glance at certain aspects of contemporary culture can help us to understand the progressive weakening of the sense of sin, precisely because of the crisis of conscience and crisis of the sense of God already mentioned.

    "Secularism" is by nature and definition a movement of ideas and behavior which advocates a humanism totally without God, completely centered upon the cult of action and production and caught up in the heady enthusiasm of consumerism and pleasure seeking, unconcerned with the danger of "losing one's soul." This secularism cannot but undermine the sense of sin. At the very most, sin will be reduced to what offends man. But it is precisely here that we are faced with the bitter experience which I already alluded to in my first encyclical, namely, that man can build a world without God, but this world will end by turning against him." In fact, God is the origin and the supreme end of man, and man carries in himself a divine seed. Hence it is the reality of God that reveals and illustrates the mystery of man. It is therefore vain to hope that there will take root a sense of sin against man and against human values, if there is no sense of offense against God, namely the true sense of sin.

    Another reason for the disappearance of the sense of sin in contemporary society is to be found in the errors made in evaluating certain findings of the human sciences. Thus on the basis of certain affirmations of psychology, concern to avoid creating feelings of guilt or to place limits on freedom leads to a refusal ever to admit any shortcoming. Through an undue extrapolation of the criteria of the science of sociology, it finally happens - as I have already said - that all failings are blamed upon society, and the individual is declared innocent of them. Again, a certain cultural anthropology so emphasizes the undeniable environmental and historical conditioning and influences which act upon man, that it reduces his responsibility to the point of not acknowledging his ability to perform truly human acts and therefore his ability to sin.


    To be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  10. The sense of sin also easily declines as a result of a system of ethics deriving from a certain historical relativism. This may take the form of an ethical system which relativizes the moral norm, denying its absolute and unconditional value, and as a consequence denying that there can be intrinsically illicit acts independent of the circumstances in which they are performed by the subject. Herein lies a real "overthrowing and downfall of moral values,"and "the problem is not so much one of ignorance of Christian ethics" but ignorance "rather of the meaning, foundations and criteria of the moral attitude." Another effect of this ethical turning upside down is always such an attenuation of the notion of sin as almost to reach the point of saying that sin does exist, but no one knows who commits it.

    Finally the sense of sin disappears when - as can happen in the education of youth, in the mass media and even in education within the family - it is wrongly identified with a morbid feeling of guilt or with the mere transgression of legal norms and precepts.

    The loss of the sense of sin is thus a form or consequence of the denial of God: not only in the form of atheism but also in the form of secularism. If sin is the breaking off of one's filial relationship to God in order to situate one's life outside obedience to him, then to sin is not merely to deny God. To sin is also to live as if he did not exist, to eliminate him from one's daily life. A model of society which is mutilated or distorted in one sense or another, as is often encouraged by the mass media, greatly favors the gradual loss of the sense of sin. In such a situation the obscuring or weakening of the sense of sin comes from several sources: from a rejection of any reference to the transcendent in the name of the individual's aspiration to personal independence; from acceptance of ethical models imposed by general consensus and behavior, even when condemned by the individual conscience; from the tragic social and economic conditions that oppress a great part of humanity, causing a tendency to see errors and faults only in the context of society; finally and especially from the obscuring of the notion of God's fatherhood and dominion over man's life.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Alan, this may seem like a weird question, but do you know that God loves you?

    ReplyDelete
  12. ""So for good to triumph god does not need to be involved."

    Alan this is a massive untruth. You may believe it, but I cannot let it stand without response. It is society's biggest lie, and it's a frightening, horrible one."

    Opinion,not fact, not truth. Opinion"

    Everyone needs God. Everyone needs Jesus Christ. Even if they do not know it.

    Yes, without God good cannot triumph. Not ever. Not ever. "

    this is opinion, I hope you understand that. I understand this is a blog written by a catholic, so I certainly expect this to be your opinion, but that does not make it a truth or even a Truth.

    I like how you consider all sins to be evil. I guess we have a very different definition of the word evil. But of course i have done "bad" things. But I'll bet you and I will disagree on what I consider bad and what you do. And just because YOU consider something is bad doesn't make it bad. What I consider to be good doesn't make it good.

    Although I feel this is one of your very clever traps that will only lead to more questions attempting to get me to see your opinion as truth, yes Leila I do believe that god loves me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am glad to hear that last part, Alan, truly. How do you serve Him? How do you find His truth? How do we love God? And can a person truly love God and still believe that Good is possible without Him?

    Not trying to set a "clever trap", Alan, just trying to get you to take your opinions further, and really explore how things can be.

    "I certainly expect this to be your opinion, but that does not make it a truth or even a Truth."

    What makes something a truth or a Truth, Alan? And how can we know it?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes, theologically speaking: Sin = moral wrong = evil. I am using theological terms but they are synonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Let me try something foundational, from this angle:

    Alan, we all have thoughts/opinions/ideas. Sometimes those ideas correspond with objective reality, i.e., with what is true. For example, I believe that the Boston Marathon bombings were evil acts. It's my opinion, but it's also objectively true. My opinion did not make it true, of course; it's simply true regardless of my opinion -- or the opinion of the bombers for that matter, who think it was good.

    Can you see that even though opinions are opinions, sometimes what we believe (opinion) is actually true? Sometimes false, yes, but sometimes true.

    Can we agree on that, at least?

    Then, the next questions begin: How do we know what is true? Is truth knowable in the first place? Did God want us to know His Truth? And are we obliged to submit to that truth, even if it costs us our comfort or possessions or opinions or even our lives?

    If God is Goodness itself (not "has goodness" but "IS Goodness") as Catholics believe, then no good can occur apart from God, ever.

    And either that statement is true or it is false, but the truth or falsity of it is not determined by opinion (even though you and I each have differing opinions on that point). So, one of us is right and one of us is wrong.

    Hope that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I am glad to hear that last part, Alan, truly. How do you serve Him?"
    What do you mean how do I serve god? Im a good person, I help out when I can, don't allow hate in my heart. But see I believe in a god, not a book, not a religion (like you) but a god.

    " How do you find His truth?"
    I think most of it makes sense. Be a good person, not for the reward of eternal life, but because that is how you should live your life.

    " How do we love God?"Very differently. The way I see it I love god and you love catholicism. They are totally different.

    " And can a person truly love God and still believe that Good is possible without Him?"
    Yes

    "I certainly expect this to be your opinion, but that does not make it a truth or even a Truth."

    What makes something a truth or a Truth, Alan? And how can we know it?"

    Thats a tricky question Leila, one for which I don't have an answer. But I do know that just because we think something is a truth does not make it so.

    Some truths are universally known. (gravity is an example of this) Some are demonstrable.
    The only way we will ever really know if god is truth is when we meet god, and then it's a little to late cuz you are dead.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Yes, theologically speaking: Sin = moral wrong = evil. I am using theological terms but they are synonymous."

    As much as I understand this is a blog written by a catholic, theological arguments don't hold much water with me. Too many different theologies, too many that don't agree with each other, too many that say they are truth.

    I see what you are saying, but lets ask, lets say the hubby tells you you look good in a dress you love, but you really don't. Now he has lied, and I think we all know lying is a sin, but is it evil? You may say yes, but I would disagree.
    Another, we are at war. Only god can take a life, but you end up killing an innocent civilian. Is that evil?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Not trying to set a "clever trap", Alan, just trying to get you to take your opinions further, and really explore how things can be."

    So you want me to do something you yourself don't want to do? I've explored my opinions. I understand what I think and why I think it. You seem to think that because I disagree with you, or because I simply don't follow your religion (again I will make the distinction that god is not catholicism) that I don't seem to have given my opinions or my beliefs much thought.

    The way I see it you are relying on your religion to tell you what to think, so you don't really have to "take your opinions further, and really explore how things can be."

    I apologize if this comes off as insulting as it is not meant to be. It is just meant to make you explore how things really can be.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Can you see that even though opinions are opinions, sometimes what we believe (opinion) is actually true? Sometimes false, yes, but sometimes true.

    Can we agree on that, at least?"

    I can agree with that.

    "Then, the next questions begin: How do we know what is true? Is truth knowable in the first place? Did God want us to know His Truth? And are we obliged to submit to that truth, even if it costs us our comfort or possessions or opinions or even our lives?"

    I cannot answer how we know what truth is. That seems to be one of the biggest problems. I guess if pressed then yes truths are knowable in the first place. I cannot answer if god wants us to know his truth. I believe in god, I have faith god exists, but I cannot prove god exists. Many don't agree, and to that I wont argue.
    Some truths of course we have to submit to. Take gravity again. We must submit to gravity. Unless we find a way to not. Oxygen. We need oxygen to live. That is a truth we must subject to. Truths in the physical realms we of course have to subject to.


    "If God is Goodness itself (not "has goodness" but "IS Goodness") as Catholics believe, then no good can occur apart from God, ever."

    the "as catholics believe" is where you lose me here. Is everyone catholic? Does everyone acknowledge god as truth?

    "And either that statement is true or it is false, but the truth or falsity of it is not determined by opinion (even though you and I each have differing opinions on that point). So, one of us is right and one of us is wrong."

    Then how is the truth or falsity determined?

    And what if we were both right? What if those that believe in god get their reward of eternal life, those that don't (or don't want eternal life) just simply cease to exist?

    the way I see it (as almost everything we discuss is our opinion, mine included) I have nothing to lose by living my life the way I do. I'm a good person, sure sometimes I do wrong (loving my husband, not partner, but husband is among the things I know I am doing right) but for the most part my heart is in the right place.


    Hope that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  20. And what if we were both right? What if those that believe in god get their reward of eternal life, those that don't (or don't want eternal life) just simply cease to exist?

    No, Alan, every single human person is created by God and will be subject to God's judgment upon death. Regardless of whether you accept God's existence, you WILL be judged by Him when you die. God creates us with the free will to either accept or reject Him and His love. If you persist in sinful behaviors without repenting, then you put your soul at grave risk of Hell.

    I know it would be nice to think of it that way, just simply not existing after death, but we all will be required to take responsibility for all our actions and behaviors when we die. What we do in life matters, we must obediently follow God if we want to go to Heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Margo,
    See back to conversation about opinion v fact.
    What you are stating is your opinion.
    What I am stating is my opinion.
    But thank you for being one of the first to say that those who don't repent will go to hell. Most seem to avoid saying that.

    But if I follow your logic, then muslims will go to heaven for following what god instructed them to do?

    And shouldn't you do good in life regardless of the rewards you will reap from it?

    Not sure what you know of me, but I am gay, married to a man. To you that means I will go to hell as I will not repent for loving the way I was meant to. To me there is no way god would allow me to go to hell for loving in the way he intended me to. So now I ask you is what I wrote fact, or opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  22. For your question about Muslims, I invite you to read a previous post by Leila: http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/12/can-non-catholics-be-saved.html

    What is "good", Alan? Is it subjective, based on personal feelings? Or are there things that are objectively good?

    How do you how God intended you to love? What if He intended you to love in a way that goes beyond mere romantic, affectionate feelings?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Alan, a lot of good questions, thank you!

    I will start with just a couple or else I will lose focus. Remind me as we go if there is a question we still need to get to. But for now, just a couple of things.

    First, we don't have a choice in obeying the law of gravity. It's not a moral choice, a free will choice. We have an intellect and a will, and it's the "knowing and choosing" to do good acts or evils acts that will determine our fate. (And yes, unrepentant mortal sinners will go to hell… sorry if I was not clear on that. There are three things that make a sin mortal for a person who commits it: 1) the sin must be serious, 2) the person who does it must know that it's serious, and 3) the person must commit the sin with full consent of the will.)

    I'm going to repeat Margo's question: How do you know how God wants you to love, sexually speaking?

    I don't believe in a "Book" or a "religion" per se…. I believe in the Bible and the Church because I believe in the Person who gave them to us. I believe in the Person of Jesus Christ (God incarnate) who died on the Cross and rose again, bodily, from the grave to save us from our sins. It about Jesus, all of it.

    If God is not Goodness and Truth, then what is God? What is your understanding of God?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Margo
    I asked you the question, not Leila. Not sure why you didn't answer. Oh wait, you didn't answer anything I asked. Why?
    Are you looking for a list of what is good? Is that what you are after? If so I simply don't have the time to make an exhaustive list of what I think is good. I thought you would be able to follow a simple concept of good and answer.
    So lets see if I can reask the question in a way where you will answer it.
    Do you spend your life following gods rules in the hopes of a reward? Wouldn't it make sense to follow gods rules without expecting the reward at death?

    And for the sake of argument only am I using gods words as a substitute for good.

    ReplyDelete
  25. so Leila we are speaking of truths only in the moral sense?
    Because we were speaking of objective truths.
    Now when you start talking sin, and what will cause us to go to hell, well you are kind of proving my point for me. In no way shape or form to I consider my marriage to be a sin. So I can't see it as a serious sin. So based on this alone I guess you will see me in heaven.

    But I ask you how do you know how god wants you to love sexually? I mean how do you know?

    And it's funny because you say you don't believe in a book or a religion, but then you say you believe in the bible and the church. But see the bible is a book, the church a religion. So not really sure how you can say you don't believe in a book and religion.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Alan - you've never once lied? Gossiped? Lost your temper? Said an unkind thing in the heat of anger?

    You'd have to be the first person I've ever met who claims to be perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'll also throw this back to the both of you.
    Margo wants to know if I think god wanted me to love in more than a merely romantic and affectionate feelings.

    I know Leila is married, Margo I will assume you are. So please tell me how you chose to marry the men you are married to? Did they look like good breeders? Do you think your feelings for them (not your children and families, but them) are deeper than mine? You seem to think my marriage, my love is superficial. And you seem to assume that because we cannot procreate.
    Let me know if I got this wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  28. JoAnna, I've been waiting for you.

    Where have I said that I am perfect?
    Yes I've lied, I've sworn, I've said things in the heat of anger.

    This has what to do with what?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Alan, yes, when I am speaking of morality and sin, I am talking about objective moral truths (the universal moral law).

    Of course I believe in the Bible and in Catholicism (religion). Absolutely! But I believe in them because of the Person (Jesus Christ) who gave them to us. Not for their sake alone.

    How do I know that the sexual faculty is to be used with the opposite sex? Biology is a good indicator. The reproductive system is the only bodily system that requires another, complementary half (in fact, another person), to work. I know biologically that the reproductive system and organs are not designed to be used in the digestive tract.

    Philosophically, we ask ourselves: "What is the nature of a thing?"

    We can't just go on emotion or feelings to know what is right, sexually, correct? If so, can you see that things would get really messed up, very quickly? Think of adultery, fornication, pedophilia, porn all sorts of stuff.

    So, aside from raw emotion, how do you know whom God wants you to love, sexually?

    I understand that you don't see your sexual relationship as a serious sin. I may very well see you in Heaven! No on is condemning you personally, Alan. Only God can read and judge your heart. But we can certainly ascertain moral truths both from divine revelation and from reason (natural law). I personally hope and pray that all of us get to Heaven, including myself. I don't presume that I will never fall into mortal sin. I can only pray for the grace to keep myself in virtue, and to love God as best I can, considering how He has loved me (us).

    As for your question about doing good for a reward, I think I will let Venerable Fulton J. Sheen answer for me (he is more eloquent than I, by far):

    "A man who affirms the love of God negates the love of evil… The reason noble characters refuse to sin is not because they are afraid of hell or punishment; they negate evil because they would not hurt the one they love.”
    —Venerable Fulton J. Sheen

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sorry to keep you waiting, Alan. :)

    You said, "I don't know if I have done evil."

    But you've just admitted that you have done evil (as have we all). So, maybe rethink that statement?

    My husband's cousin lives across the street from where the Boston bombings took place. She saw the 2nd bomb go off from her balcony. Does that allow me to share my opinion?

    I'm curious, are you not allowed to reflect on the horror and evil of 9/11 since you didn't experience it firsthand?

    ReplyDelete
  31. JoAnna
    I don't think I have admitted I have done evil. We disagree on the term evil. I don't think lying is necessarily evil. So to you I have committed evil. To myself I have not.

    So I stand by my statement that I don't know if I have committed evil. In honesty I don't think I have.

    JoAnna I can't stop anyone from commenting. That being said, I feel for your cousin. It was a horrible day in the city. I actually walked by Boylston for the first time today. It was sad.
    But the long and short is comment all you want.

    The bombings, the officer killed, the office wounded, the terror caused to Boston and it's surrounding towns and cities is the fault of two (unless during investigation others are found to have helped). You can speculate all you want, but the only cause is those two young men who dropped the bombs, shot the police and caused the huge manhunt.

    ReplyDelete
  32. If lying is not a moral evil, then what is it? It is not a moral good, correct?

    If it's "bad", that what we call "evil".

    What is your definition of "evil" (and how is it different from a morally bad/wrong act?)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sorry, Alan, I just got back from classes. I'm a senior in college - almost about to graduate in less than a month, yay!

    Anyways, now that I have more time, I'll answer your questions.

    I am not stating my opinion, rather, I am sharing God's Truth with you, and believe me, God's Truth trumps any personal opinion of mine. Maybe this will help: Catholics surrender themselves to God and we do our best to remain obedient to Him, His teachings, and His will. We freely choose to put our trust in Him who knows what is best for us.

    As for doing good. How am I supposed to know how to good without God? Without God, "goodness" is subjective to personal opinion. For instance, I may consider robbing a bank to be "good" in that it will provide me with money. There has GOT to be some source of unchanging morality/laws, otherwise, it's just chaos.

    I do good because I am motivated by love; I strive to imitate Christ in my daily life, spreading His love through my actions and behavior.

    I spend my life following God's rules because He knows what is best for all humanity and He knows far better than I do what will bring about society's ultimate goodness. Yes, I hope to go to Heaven, but that is a desire given to me by God because He wants me to join Him in Heaven, so He gave me that desire as motivation to once again spend my life spreading His love. It really all boils down to love, not affectionate, mushy-gushy love, but real, self-sacrificing, selfless love.

    By the way, I am not married. I am a single 22-year-old.

    ReplyDelete
  34. One other thought...my life revolves around Jesus because I'm in love with Him. Maybe that love will bring me to marry a man, maybe it will keep me single, maybe I'll wind up as a sister or cloistered nun. I'm still trying to figure all that out. But, ultimately, I'm in love with Christ - any good I do is because of Him. I cannot just do good things for no reason, so Jesus is my reason. I hope that kinda makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Margo
    Congratulations on graduating..

    You write
    "How am I supposed to know how to good without God? Without God, "goodness" is subjective to personal opinion."

    I am glad that you understand that YOU cannot do good without god. Now you need to expand and realize that although you cannot do good without god others can.
    Many of us will tell you that your goodness is subjective. It's just while others figure out what is good on their own you have your religion (again separating catholicism from god) to tell you.
    I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would actually say robbing a bank is good.
    Lets ask this though how do you feel about killing in war?

    And when and if you get married do you think your love for your husband will be more than "affection, mushy-gushy love"? And if so why?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Leila, you have such a love affair with mentioning pedophelia in concert with my marriage. I wonder why.

    Is your marriage to your husband raw emotion only? Is it only about sex? Can only god make it more than just emotion? Do the children make it about more than just emotion?

    Is lying good? Is there ever any circumstance for lying?

    What do I consider evil? I tell you it is not lying, although lying is not good to me it's not evil. I don't consider all bad things to be evil. You want to call them evil fine. You want to say I have committed evil acts fine. I have no desire to argue this with you. You have your opinion, I mine.

    And I am aware you are not condemning me as a person. You are condemning my acts. One of those acts is my marriage. You see it as evil, I see you as full of spit about that. You will not see my way, and I certainly will not see yours. It's funny because you say you can't condemn me to hell only god can, but you still think you should be able to determine who I marry based on what god says.

    You seem to think that your marriage is about so much more than romantic love and emotions, but mine could not possibly be. I find that to be incredibly short sighted and slightly ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  37. and Margo,
    sorry I forgot this the first time
    saying "I am not stating my opinion, rather, I am sharing God's Truth with you, and believe me, God's Truth trumps any personal opinion of mine." does not remove the fact that this is your opinion. You chose to follow the catholic church. That was your free will. Those who don't follow the catholic church, any religion or god at all, that is there free will. But that doesn't make them wrong and you right.

    ReplyDelete
  38. And I am aware you are not condemning me as a person. You are condemning my acts.

    I'm glad you are able to differentiate between judging an action and judging a person, it's an important differentiation to be able to see in this discussion.

    And when and if you get married do you think your love for your husband will be more than "affection, mushy-gushy love"? And if so why?

    Yes, my marriage will be more than "affectionate, mushy-gushy love" because it will be based on God's love. It will be about my husband and I constantly seeking the ultimate good of the other, us leading each other to Heaven, which will involve plenty of self-sacrifices, I'm sure. It will be about us coming together to God-willing create new life (children).

    You chose to follow the catholic church. That was your free will. Those who don't follow the catholic church, any religion or god at all, that is there free will. But that doesn't make them wrong and you right.

    Actually, since the Catholic Church DOES contain the fullness of God's Truth, it does make other people wrong. It's not my opinion, I didn't make Catholicism True, the Church existed long long before my lifetime and it will continue to exist as Truth long after I'm gone. It's not relative to any person, like that it's the ultimate Truth for me, but not for the next person. Nope, it's the Truth that every person was made for, the complete fulfillment of every human's desires, only God can completely satisfy us. Now, yes, God did give us free will, so you can reject Him and His Truth. However, rejecting Him does not change the fact that He IS Truth and Love.


    ReplyDelete
  39. Margo
    As much as I am sure you wont see this, sadly I don't think you are capable of seeing this (not trying to insult, just stating what I see as a fact) my marriage is so much more than just affection.
    We too sacrifice for each other, we too seek the good for each other.We too have created a family.
    When my best friend (really so much more, she was family to me) died last month my husband flew 24 hours to get to me. I told him not to but he did. He did it because I was more important, my pain more important for him to heal than what he was doing. So if you think that is romantic, or mushy gushy love and so superficial that it cannot compare to a god loving heterosexual marriage, well if you think that then I guess our conversation is done. To think that that kind of greater love cannot exist outside of heterosexual marriage, outside of religious marriage, well that just shows where the disconnect is. And sadly that disconnect cannot be fixed.

    And I'll state again, because I want to, your last paragraph is all your opinion. No one made catholicism true, because it may or may not be true. It's true to you that is fair to say. But one cannot say it is true to all. It simply cannot be said as an objective truth.

    ReplyDelete
  40. But one cannot say it is true to all. It simply cannot be said as an objective truth.

    Why can't God be true for all? So are you saying that it is an absolute truth that God cannot be true for everyone? How can God only be true for some people, but not everyone?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon." -- G.K. Chesterton

    Either Catholicism is true or it is not. Either Jesus is God or He is not. Truth is Truth for all (including those who do not yet see or understand it).

    ReplyDelete
  42. Alan, forgive me, but you misunderstand. I never, ever said that anyone's love or marriage is only about romantic feelings. Obviously, any time we truly love others (whether eros or not), it involves other aspects than "feelings". But marriage itself is a conjugal union. It is not simply a union of two folks who love each other (that could mean almost anything, including friendships and some other stuff which would be illicit), nor is it any union that we feel romantic about (that brings us back to pedophilia, adultery, fornication, bestiality, polygamy, etc.).

    Marriage has many aspects, but there is one aspect it cannot be without, by its nature: It's a "one flesh" conjugal union, joining a man and a woman together, through the complementarity of their very bodies and reproductive systems. It has always been thus and no amount of redefining it can change that. Men cannot marry men. They don't have the equipment to consummate the marriage with each other. Marriage is a conjugal union which bonds a man to his wife and to the children sprung from their union. It's the basis of society, and it is *unique* among all relationships. Can you see that a sexual relationship between a man and woman is different than any other? It is different because it is designed to procreate children (even if children do not result), and that's the only reason at all that the state would have a vested interest in recognizing marriage at all. Otherwise, the state has no interest in confirming someone's romance (even if that romance includes sacrifices, etc., as all human relationships do).

    You want your relationship to be recognized and validated, but the word "marriage" cannot apply to it, unless you completely redefine the conjugal essence of marriage.

    It's like a clock, which has a certain nature or essence. We all know what a clock is, even though clocks come in different sizes and shapes, etc. Sometimes, a clock is broken or out of batteries, but it is still recognizable as a clock. It still possesses its essence of "clockness", if you will. Now, if folks started calling pencils "clocks", it would still not make a pencil a clock (because the essence of a clock still remains the same, and a pencil cannot be a clock), but it will definitely end up confusing a lot of people and making us less able to talk about clocks or pencils, or even to each other.

    No one is saying that you don't love your partner, and no one is saying that you don't have a relationship. What we are saying is that since it is not conjugal in nature, and since by nature's design you cannot consummate your union, it cannot ever be "marriage", no matter how many people call it that. The nature of your union is fundamentally different than the nature of a marital union. It is nothing personal, it's just an ontological and biological fact.

    ReplyDelete
  43. And as for pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, etc… I will be addressing all that in my next post, if I can ever get around to it. A lot of activity has been happening on those fronts, with those groups waiting for their legal turn, basing it on the redefinition of marriage. If you don't think they have a case, remember that that's what everyone used to say about gay "marriage" as well. Once we open things up and move away from traditional norms, and view sex as a "right" for everyone to live out as they feel they were born to do (and those groups feel that God gave them those feelings and rights), then we have to be prepared for all that comes.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Leila
    This discussion about gay marriage gets confused a lot of this blog because what you are talking about is not civil marriage, which is only determined by the government. The government decides who can be legally married, and in some states same-sex couples can have a legal marriage. And so it makes no sense to say they can't be legally married when they actually are married in the eyes of the government.

    And that is what the whole gay marriage movement in about--a couple's relationship to laws of the state, therefore the legal rights they are entitled to. You are talking about a spiritual bond, I believe (what you call Matrimony?), when you say gay couples can't be "married." It is a confusion of terms. That is a different discussion entirely and one that has nothing to do with what the Supreme Court is deciding.

    As long as same-sex couples can be married by the justice of the peace the goals of the same-sex marriage movement will be met. Whether or not churches recognize marriages is up to churches (just as Catholic churches don't recognize the civil marriages of couple where one person is divorced--the state does not interfere with the Catholic Church's right to define CAtholic marriage)

    My best friend has been married about six years and she and her husband have never had sex (it's complicated...) and I doubt they ever will. So, would you say they can't be married because their relationship is not a "conjugal" union? Should they not be allowed the legal rights of marriage?

    And no, they are not married because of romantic/gushy love (or however you phrase it). It is odd that you frequently assert that anyone who is getting married without the goal of having children has some sort of shallow, second-rate love.

    You also say frequently that the state recognizes marriage because of the procreation of children and because the family is the building block of society (can't remember how you word it). I don't think that's right. I believe legal marriage has mostly existed to protect men's property rights--because women and children have been considered property, not partners. (hence, the tradition of a father "giving away" his daughter to her husband, etc), And among upper classes and royalty marriage has been a way to solidify relationships because countries or societies.

    At the moment I can't give you the references though I studied the history of marriage in college---wrote a term paper about it---and used to know the reference.

    "Actually, since the Catholic Church DOES contain the fullness of God's Truth, it does make other people wrong. It's not my opinion, I didn't make Catholicism True"

    That actually IS your opinion, Margot. I honor your right to your opinion but never-ending assertions that Catholicism represents THE truth will never be anything but many people's opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Johanne, do you at least agree with this statement: Either Catholicism is true, or it is not true.

    As to marriage… It is actually pre-political, so it has existed even before there were state laws or property rights, etc. The issue is the definition of marriage. No matter what it has entailed, or how the details or state recognition (once the state came in) have changed, it has never been anything but a conjugal union. It has always been, by its nature, heterosexual. Even your friend who have not consummated…. if they have the ability to consummate, that is enough. Unless of course one of them wants to consummate and the other does not; then, the first party can have the marriage annulled civilly.

    I understand that now the state has redefined marriage fundamentally, but that just goes to my clock/pencil analogy. It may be that we now call something that is not marriage "marriage", but it's like calling a pencil a clock. We may legally have such a thing in place right now, but it doesn't change the essence of what true "marriage" (or "clock") is. It just means we are redefining and confusing the very nature of things themselves, which is no good for anyone. (And will lead us to places none of us want to go.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bad grammar, rushed, sorry!!

      My point about the consummation is that as long as a couple can consummate, they are capable of marriage. Even the state will annul for non-consummation. Gay couples cannot have a conjugal union, which is the salient point of what makes marriage "marriage". Even back to Hillary, who said it well, when she did not deny the truth of it:

      "[Marriage is] the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history, as one of the founding foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society in which they are to become adults.”

      Delete
  46. Margo,
    Lets try this.
    Does everyone believe in god?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Leila is there really such a thing as pre political?
    Can you define the word conjugal? I looked it up. Several different definitions, not all of which mention husband and wife or man and woman. None mention sexual activity, unless referencing conjugal visit.

    You wrote:
    "you see that a sexual relationship between a man and woman is different than any other?"

    Yes

    "It is different because it is designed to procreate children (even if children do not result),"

    Yes

    "and that's the only reason at all that the state would have a vested interest in recognizing marriage at all."

    Not true."

    Otherwise, the state has no interest in confirming someone's romance"

    Couple of things on this. One it is more than just romance. Didn't you just acknowledge this?
    The state has an interest in people having stable relationships. Marriage can create stable relationships, and society will indeed benefit from this. You yourself have told me that marriage bonds a family. That family starts (and may continue) without children.
    Marriage has changed through out the years. It indeed used to be a transfer of property, just like Johanna mentioned. Maybe not in your church, but most definitely in society.

    But are you finally saying that my relationship with my husband deserves some form of recognition (legal and otherwise) as that of more than just friends?

    I look forward to your post about all those other things that are just like gay marriage. You wont see the logic in my answers, but I will put them up anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Leila
    is a watch a clock?
    what about a smart phone, can that be used as a clock?

    ReplyDelete
  49. or what if one made a clock where the hands were made of pencils?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Alan,

    No, not everyone believes in God. HOWEVER, since when does not believing in something/someone affect their existence? I don't believe in hummus, but guess what? Hummus is real, me saying that I don't believe in hummus doesn't change anything. Likewise, when people say they don't believe in God, God keeps on existing.

    Like Leila said, either Catholicism is true or it is not, there is no middle ground, no being true for some people and not others, doesn't work that way.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Conjugal as in in sexual union (joining) of spouses. Spouses has always meant husband/wife, and sexual union (the conjugal act) has always meant sexual intercourse, the marital act. It has never meant anything sodomy-based (whether by heterosexual couples or homosexual couples), and there can be no sexual union with two men or two women. Sexual union cannot come from the merging of the reproductive system with the digestive system, for example.

    If a smartphone has a clock in it, then there is a clock in the smartphone. A watch can be considered a type of clock, yes, and if some argue the point, it doesn't touch the essence of either, which is that they are both instruments to measure and display time. If a clock has pencil hands, it's still a clock and not a pencil or writing instrument (even if the hands are pencils). There can also be clocks embedded in pencils, but they are not pencils, and the pencil is the not the clock. Clocks shaped as pencils are still clocks, and clocks with pencil designs on them are still pencils. Again, "What is the nature of a thing?"

    What is the essence or nature of marriage?

    "The state has an interest in people having stable relationships."

    Not really. Not in the way you mean. After all, it's wonderful if we all had good and stable relationships with our parents, our siblings, our cousins, our nephews and nieces, and of course our friends, but you don't see any state interest there. There is a reason that the state has a vested interest in marriage, and it's because the union of male/female is unique among all other relationships, and due to its procreative nature, it is the basic unit of all human society.

    Pre-political, think of what Hillary Clinton meant by going back into the "mists of history". The state did not hand out tax benefits and legal status in pre-political times, but man and woman still married and begot children from their very special (unique) union.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clarifying: There can also be clocks embedded in pencils, but the clock is not the pencil, and the pencil is the not the clock.

      So again, the basic question is: What is the nature of marriage? What is its essence? What makes it different from all other bonds or relationships?

      Delete
  52. Margo,
    Can you put a bowl of god in front of me? Your analogy is weak at best. Try again.
    What proof do you have of gods existence?
    I can show you hummus exists.

    Is catholicism true? Sure, why not, I mean it exists right. I can find you catholics. So the church, the religion exists. And it has indeed been around for approximately 2000 years.

    And that proves what?
    I can show you hummus exists. I can show you catholics exist. I can bring you to the churches.

    But guess what, I can show you muslims exist. I can show you protestants exist. I can show you agnostics and atheist exist. Does that make them true?

    This argument is lacking.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Alan, her point is that things are either objectively true or they are not. Either Catholicism is true or it's not. She was not arguing that Catholics exists, she is arguing that what Catholicism teaches is true.

    It either is, or it isn't.

    Stacy, who is a scientist and a Catholic, has a clever post on the "prove that God exists" challenge:

    http://stacytrasancos.com/what-if-i-denied-the-existence-of-science/

    ReplyDelete
  54. Leila
    Why are you not fighting to get government out of the marriage business rather than restrict marriage to just heterosexuals then?

    And to answer your question the essence of marriage to me (important words are to me, you are asking for what I think, so you can now ask your typical follow up questions, but my answer will remain the same) is the joining of two to create a family. It, if done properly will create a stable relationship. Sorry but I think that helps to benefit society.

    But this remains to be true, as long as the government extends benefits to marriage it should be open to all.

    A watch is not a clock. Who would call a watch a clock? Yes they are both time telling implements, but you say a watch can be called a clock? I guess we can call a clock a watch now.

    Or maybe we should just call it all hummus?

    ReplyDelete
  55. well then no Leila, catholicism is not true.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "well then no Leila, catholicism is not true."

    Prove it.

    "Who would call a watch a clock?"

    If I looked around a room and asked, "Is there a clock around here??" someone with a watch would tell me the time, but no one would point me to a pencil.

    Why would we call it all hummus? Can hummus measure and tell time? ;)

    "Marriage is the joining of two to create a family." Okay. But what kind of joining? If two widowed sisters want to raise their kids together, should we call that marriage? Why or why not? And, why "two"? Why that particular number, if not rooting in a biological imperative (natural law rearing its head)?

    "...as long as the government extends benefits to marriage it should be open to all" Alan, you don't really mean "all" do you? You want some restrictions on who can marry, don't you? If not, that is the slippery slope. So, do you want to amend your "all"?

    "Why are you not fighting to get government out of the marriage business rather than restrict marriage to just heterosexuals then?"

    Because the government should be promoting and sanctioning the basic stabilizing institution of all humanity: The bonding of a man towards his wife and the children they create. I don't want to water-down or obliterate marriage (by redefining it out of existence), I want to strengthen it. Children, by all accounts, do best when raised within marriage by their biological mother and father. And that is what society should promote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *if not rooted in a biological imperative…

      Sorry for all my typos, ack!

      Delete
  57. Leila,
    Prove it. Really?
    Which aspects of Catholicism being true should I disprove.

    "If I looked around a room and asked, "Is there a clock around here??" someone with a watch would tell me the time, but no one would point me to a pencil."
    But if you wanted to know the time why would you ask if there was a clock? Wouldn't you ask what the time was? If you asked me if there was a clock in the room I would answer the question yes or no. But that's a pet peeve of mine, people not answering the question that was asked or people not asking the question they wanted the answer to. If I want to know the time I'll ask for the time.

    Because the government should be promoting and sanctioning the basic stabilizing institution of all humanity: The bonding of a spouses towards each other and the children they create (or don't if they chose not to have children, which you admit is the prerogative of heterosexuals when they marry).

    My changes fit pretty well.

    But you are right Leila, not to all. Of course there should be rules. Unrelated persons, because really most, if not all people understand that the relationships are different. And as far as I am concerned it should not be to multiple, as in my opinion one cannot be fully committed to more than one spouse. That doesn't seem to be fully committed does I? And not to animals or inanimate objects, because they really cannot agree to enter into marriage now can they. And of course we know that children legally cannot enter into contracts (which is what marriage is to the government) because they are not fully mature enough to understand their actions.

    But you want to throw the children thing out there, at what age do you think children should be able to marry?


    I chose hummus because Margo does not believe in hummus and apparently that is an appropriate analogy to god.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Alan, you said marriage is the "joining of two" to create a family. But historically, that has never, ever meant two men "joining" or two women "joining", because they can't "join" in the way that marriage has always required "joining".

    You say that everyone knows that two sisters "joining" to create a family is "different", because most people see those as different from real marriage. But Alan, most people (even you) can see that the male/female sexual relationship is "different" from two males or two females. Different not in degree, but in kind.

    As for when children should be able to marry, Canon law in my Church sets it as a minimum of 14 for women and 16 for men. In America, most fourteen year olds are not ready to marry, and I think you will find very few western women (or men) marrying at those minimum ages.

    Alan, my question about the clock/watch was not meant to be a real life scenario. It was meant to illustrate a point. If you wanted to know what time it was, would someone refer you to the pencil in his pocket? Not likely. He would refer you to those things whose essence was to measure and tell time (watch or clock).

    ReplyDelete
  59. Johanne, do you at least agree with this statement: Either Catholicism is true, or it is not true.

    I would say no because Catholicism, as I see it, is a morass of laws, teachings, rituals, etc etc etc and I don't know if the question of whether or not "it" is true really makes sense. But then you understand Catholicism much better than I do-- :-), so I grant your question must make sense but I don't know how to answer it because I don't know what you're really asking.

    In present time, in this country, the government grants all kinds of privileges to people with a marriage license and that is what the "gay marriage" debate is about--not about the basic nature of union, or whatever. You keep talking apples to oranges which makes discussion impossible. "Marriage" is just a word.

    I am confused about your comment to alan: "prove it"

    You say you love logic--but do you really think, logically, that it makes any sense to think something is proven to be right just because someone can't prove that it's not???

    ReplyDelete
  60. "You say you love logic--but do you really think, logically, that it makes any sense to think something is proven to be right just because someone can't prove that it's not???"

    Johanne, bingo, that's my point! I was trying to say just that. Things are true because they are true, not because we believe them or can or cannot "prove" them, etc. Truth is Truth, and we don't determine Truth. We are not the cause or the source of Truth. And if I cannot "prove" something to Alan's satisfaction, it does not mean that it's not True. Hope that makes sense of why I said what I did.

    I guess when I said, "Either Catholicism is true or it is not true", I meant it in this sense. Catholicism has a claim. The claim is pretty bold. It's that Jesus Christ is God, and He founded the Catholic Church to teach Truth in His name. So, that Truth (what we call the Deposit of Faith) is of God. It is objectively true. The claim of the Church is that what she teaches regarding Faith and Morals (the Deposit of Faith) is revealed by God. That "bundle" (which includes the authority from God to make the "lesser", changeable rules, too), is Catholicism. Either the Church's claim is True, or it is not True. Either she is what she claims, or she is not.

    That's all I'm asking. It's like saying, do you agree with this: Either I am sitting in a chair right now or I am not. (Both those things cannot be true at the same time -- I am either sitting in a chair, or I am not sitting in a chair.)

    Not asking to prove it or not prove it, but just that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time, and one statement has to be true, the other false.

    I'm trying to be that basic with Alan, just to get us off the ground floor here.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "Marriage" is just a word.

    And here is exactly where the left diverges from all who believe in objective truth, be they conservatives or Catholics, or whomever.

    We believe that while words are simply sounds that represent a thing, that the thing they represent is real (either a real concept, a real idea, a real object, whatever). Words mean something. They are how we communicate, how we avoid a Tower of Babel. Words are so powerful that they can kill. Language, and the manipulation of it, has been the basis for propaganda and justification of very, very evil things. Always has been. Language is so important, and the the statement "'marriage' is just a word" has the power to change the very foundations of society, for generations to come. Marriage is not just a word, it's a word that has meaning and has always meant something, in essence.

    You know how Shakespeare wrote that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"? Yes! But that is because the ROSE does not change, but the name could. What we are doing with "marriage" is attempting to change the essence of marriage itself, but keep the name!

    I hope that makes sense. It's late. But oh my goodness, words MEAN something. We are sunk if they don't. We lose all ability to communicate, to understand, to know what a thing is. There has to be a good Chesterton quote on this, ha ha. I have to look it up….

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hi Leila
    I made the comment about marriage only being a word--which was a clumsy comment, not because I disagree with you that words mean something. But the problem with the word "marriage" is that it means so MANY different things. Not wholly because we are currently changing the meaning, but throughout time, and in different cultures, also social vs legal vs religious. It means drastically different things--some of those things depend on a heterosexual relationship but many of them do not, even though historically that has been true. The legal rights associated with a marriage license are very current and so the whole discussion of marriage's inherent meaning seems moot to me. I don't disagree with many of your assertions of marriage but I don't see them as meaningful when discussing tax breaks, etc., which have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual intercourse. And when you say gay couples "can't" be married I would assert that you are objectively wrong because many are, in fact, legally married. And we're talking about LEGAL marriage.

    And no, I don't actually believe the basic tenets of Catholicism, and honestly after spending over a year on this blog I believe them even less. But of course I can't prove they're wrong and I have no interest in doing so. I'm not invested in Catholicism being wrong; I just see no evidence that it is, and the reasons I hear don't do anything to convince me of it. And when people say something is "objectively true," when you're talking about something like God (as opposed to "what is the speed of light."), I don't think it can be anything but an opinion no matter how often you assert that it's just a fact. (and that, of course, if MY opinion)

    ReplyDelete
  63. Oh Leila,

    "Johanne, bingo, that's my point! I was trying to say just that. Things are true because they are true, not because we believe them or can or cannot "prove" them, etc. Truth is Truth, and we don't determine Truth. We are not the cause or the source of Truth."

    Would you say any or most truths are provable?

    "And if I cannot "prove" something to Alan's satisfaction, it does not mean that it's not True. Hope that makes sense of why I said what I did."

    And just because we believe something to be true does not make it true either.

    "I guess when I said, "Either Catholicism is true or it is not true", I meant it in this sense. Catholicism has a claim. The claim is pretty bold. It's that Jesus Christ is God, and He founded the Catholic Church to teach Truth in His name. So, that Truth (what we call the Deposit of Faith) is of God. It is objectively true.'

    Yes this claim is true. The catholic church does indeed claim that.

    "The claim of the Church is that what she teaches regarding Faith and Morals (the Deposit of Faith) is revealed by God. That "bundle" (which includes the authority from God to make the "lesser", changeable rules, too), is Catholicism. Either the Church's claim is True, or it is not True."

    Again true, this is what the church claims.

    "Either she is what she claims, or she is not."

    This may also well be true. But it may also be not true.

    But the basic premise of the churches truth comes from god. If god is not real or true, then the church is not real or true.

    So you asking if the church is true is kind of a trick question from the beginning. So if you ask me if the church is true, I take that to mean is the church correct.

    But then your asking me to prove it was kind of silly, don't you think?

    "That's all I'm asking. It's like saying, do you agree with this: Either I am sitting in a chair right now or I am not. (Both those things cannot be true at the same time -- I am either sitting in a chair, or I am not sitting in a chair.)"

    Yes, and you sitting in a chair or not is easily provable.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Leila few more things.

    "Words mean something. They are how we communicate, how we avoid a Tower of Babel. Words are so powerful that they can kill. Language, and the manipulation of it, has been the basis for propaganda and justification of very, very evil things."

    Yes this is all very true. I am glad to see you understand the power of words. So now if you would just see that calling people and their actions disordered or deviant is powerful. And hurtful regardless of intent.
    But keep in mind your church (and you) is not free from the use of words as propaganda.

    "You say that everyone knows that two sisters "joining" to create a family is "different", because most people see those as different from real marriage."

    Actually most people see and understand that there is a difference in a relationship of sibling (or families) and that which is, to use words I am not sure how you think they fit into marriage yet, a romantic one. Do you agree that there is a difference in the relationship between you and your siblings and you and your husband?

    " But Alan, most people (even you) can see that the male/female sexual relationship is "different" from two males or two females. Different not in degree, but in kind."

    Yes I have admitted the relationship is different. But you keep putting a familial relationship up against a coupling, or romantic relationship. That is the difference I am highlighting. Yes I know two men and two women cannot create a completely biological child. That in itself to me is not a detriment to marriage. If it were then infertile couples should not be allowed to marry if marriage is all about procreation. What I don't agree with is that a romantic loving male/male or female/female relationship is vastly different than a romantic loving male/female relationship beyond the abilty of the two to create a completely biological child.

    "As for when children should be able to marry, Canon law in my Church sets it as a minimum of 14 for women and 16 for men."

    Eww, so catholic church thinks 14 year old girls can marry. Good to know.

    "In America, most fourteen year olds are not ready to marry, and I think you will find very few western women (or men) marrying at those minimum ages."

    Well this may well be true (I could argue that the world around 14 year olds are not ready for marriage, but it appears god seems to think they can). Does the government allow 14 year olds to marry?

    "Alan, my question about the clock/watch was not meant to be a real life scenario. It was meant to illustrate a point. If you wanted to know what time it was, would someone refer you to the pencil in his pocket? Not likely. He would refer you to those things whose essence was to measure and tell time (watch or clock)."

    If it was not meant to be a real life scenario then why use it. It makes no sense. Of course if you ask someone what time it is they wont look at a pencil. But if someone asks if I am married the answer will be yes I am married. And not to a pencil or a clock.
    The point I am trying to make is if asked what time there are many many different time telling implements. All do the same thing.


    ReplyDelete
  65. Johanna
    You rock.
    thank you

    I too have no desire to prove catholicism wrong. I don't spend my time trying to get religions banned. All I want, all I have ever wanted, is for them to realize that I don't have to live my life according to their rules. It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  66. And yet, Alan, you're fine with forcing Catholics to live by your rules. Seems illogical to me.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Johanne, legally, a clock could be a pencil if the government declares it so (legally). But would the clock really be a pencil? Of course not. The essences of the things would not have changed. And the essence of marriage has always, always been a conjugal, heterosexual union, even as other aspects have been strengthened or weakened. Taking it to "same sex" is a change in essence.

    As for God and His Truth: Do you think, theoretically that a God who loves His creatures would have the capacity (or desire) to reveal Himself and His Truth to them? Is it possible that He has provided revelation to the world, so that we can know Him?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Alan, what does the word "disordered" mean? Or even "deviant"?

    And, yes, some things in life will hurt us. I have been hurt by words (both true and false) and so has everyone. We should all be careful of the words we use, but the discussion of ideas, principles, and truths must not be forbidden, simply because it makes some people feel bad.

    We both agree that pedophilia/zoophilia/adultery are disordered and wrong. Do you feel that it is "hurtful" to pedophiles or adulterers or zoophiles to say so? I think it can be hurtful to them, sure. But I think that doesn't mean that we should not say what we believe to be true about the disordered nature of those acts. I am pretty sure you agree with me on this.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Alan, most truths are not even known to the finite human mind, much less provable. But there are many truths that are knowable, yes. Yes, human reason can attain certain basic and important truths, from science to morality. You may or may not want to dive into stuff like this for more on that concept:

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/9978/

    You were the one who said that marriage is about two people "joining" to create a family. Do you want to add romance to that definition now? Is romantic feeling essential to marriage (or sexual activity)? I only went with sisters (platonic) because I was going with what could be encapsulated by your definition (the one you provided).

    As for infertile couples, we've gone over this a lot (or was that with Frank?). A husband and wife who cannot conceive is an anomaly, and still their union is ordered toward procreation. The act itself is ordered to that end. The two complementary "halves" of the reproductive system are joining in an ordered manner. When two gay men (or lesbians) cannot have a child together through their acts, that means that everything is working as its supposed to: Meaning, barrenness is inherent to homosexual couples. Their bodies are not supposed to create families together. It's just biology. And as for infertile couples, often that infertility is temporary. I have known many couples who are able to conceive through their marital union even after ten or more years of infertility. The point it, their act is the marital act. It is the right act for marriage to be marriage.

    Can 14-year-olds legally marry here? I haven't looked into it. But you could ask Loretta Lynn. ;) She was 13? She still misses her late husband terribly. Would I recommend it? No. I would not. My daughter is getting married at age 22. Some would say that is still very young, but I think it's fantastic.

    There are many cultures all over the world, some much different from ours. And as far as the Church goes, she is not saying that it's recommended to get married that young, only that it is unlawful (in Church law) to marry younger than that age (or 16 for a male).

    If it was not meant to be a real life scenario then why use it.

    Because that's philosophy. That's how we philosophize about things. All the time. We use a hypothetical situation to get at a truth. And, it was not some off the wall Martian scenario, it was about finding out the time, and the nature of a clock.

    ReplyDelete
  70. JoAnna
    "And yet, Alan, you're fine with forcing Catholics to live by your rules. Seems illogical to me."

    What rules are you forcing me to live by?

    I am not attempting to force your church to close. I am not attempting to force you to denounce your religious beliefs. I truly believe you have the rights to practice your religion.

    So please tell me where I am forcing you to follow my beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sorry I meant what rules am I forcing you to live by.

      Delete
  71. Leila,
    "The essences of the things would not have changed. And the essence of marriage has always, always been a conjugal, heterosexual union"
    Yes I agree historically marriage has always been heterosexual. But historically so many things have changed. Woman voting, racial segregation heck they even used to send small kids to work in factories.
    And marriage has not always been about the conjugal. You and others keep asking me where on the marriage certificate it asks about love, well where does it ask about conjugating?

    And please get off the freakin pencil clock analogy. It doesn't work. What some of us are saying is marriage is marriage. Whether it be gay or straight, the function is essentially the same. Clocks and pencils cannot be used for the same purpose, unless as mentioned before the pencils are the hands of a clock, or you make a sun dial out of the pencils.


    ReplyDelete
  72. Leila,
    So we are at the point where you talk past me.

    I understand your point about the definition of words. But you don't seem to understand my point about the power of words. But let it be known, there is no reason to think we are ordered towards a belief in god. So in that point your mind is disordered I guess. And if followed further, as catholics are not the majority of the world your mind is definitely not ordered toward catholicism, so I guess I should not be bothered by words like disordered or deviant with the knowledge that your beliefs are disordered and deviant as well.

    I will concede one cannot procreate without a male and a female. I will not concede that marriage is necessarily ordered towards procreation. And I will stick with that because you yourself say that those who might not be able to procreate, those who have no interest in procreating can still get married if heterosexual. So you really negate it yourself.

    Are you saying that marriage does not include an element of romantic love? Because if you do I will yet again ask how you picked your husband then. I think you have ignored that question every time I have asked it. I let it go though.

    And are you calling Loretta Lynn's husband a pedophile?

    Did I miss anything?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Either I am sitting in a chair right now or I am not. (Both those things cannot be true at the same time -- I am either sitting in a chair, or I am not sitting in a chair)

    Leila, my sister is legally married to a woman. And by "married" I mean they have a legitimate marriage license issued by the state. If you agree that having a marriage license issued by the state constitutes a civil marriage than you MUST agree that they are actually legally married. And, following from the statement you made above, it is impossible for them to be legally married and unable to be legally married at the same time. They are either legally married, and therefore able to be so, or they are not.

    So PLEASE stop making this nonsensical argument that same-sex couples can't be legally married!!!!!!

    (and in answer to the question, "if they already can be legally married then what are they fighting about?" it's because the federal government confers many rights upon legally married couples that states do not)

    "Johanne, legally, a clock could be a pencil if the government declares it so (legally). But would the clock really be a pencil?"

    Well, perhaps, because the definitions of words actually do change over time. But apart from that, if the government confers legal rights to things it calls a "pencil" and (and NOT to things it calls a "clock") that have no bearing on whether or not they are "really" a pencil then clocks should be able to call themselves "pencils" to have those rights. The legal rights are far more important than the semantics. And if "real" pencils want to think of themselves as the real thing and clocks not, who cares?? As long as the legal rights are conferred)

    But the whole issue can be avoided if we talked about marriage and civil marriage as different things. (pencils vs legal pencils?) Then you can claim whatever you want about same-sex couples not being able to married and that's just fine because being "married" is not what allows someone to have legal rights, having a civil marriage does that.

    And historically marriage has "always, always" meant all sorts of horrible things (like ownership of women) that should not be continued. Just because something has been historically true does not mean it should continue to be true.

    "Do you think, theoretically that a God who loves His creatures would have the capacity (or desire) to reveal Himself and His Truth to them? Is it possible that He has provided revelation to the world, so that we can know Him?"

    I honestly can't answer that because it contains premises I don't share. I don't have such an anthropomorphic concept of God--that she/he/it has such human-like motivations.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Johanne, the best I can do is say this (and it's what I teach my children… the older ones already understand it): The state is calling something "marriage" that is not actually marriage. That word was usurped and is now being misused by civil authorities to mean something that it cannot mean. It is similar to the state defining "persons" fluidly. It has no actual bearing on what a true "person" is, but legally, the state uses it in such-and-such a way, for reasons blank and blank.

    So, is it marriage? No. Does the state call it marriage sometimes? Yes. But that's because they are using a word wrongly. What's really interesting in all this is that gay people didn't even want the word marriage before. They said they didn't need "a piece of paper" to give their union validity. But now, the word "marriage" is quite coveted. It happened quite quickly, this switch. Have you read the book After the Ball? I have not, but it sounds like it would explain what has been going on. And this lesbian woman has something to say about things, too, that might be worth a listen:

    http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/

    Let me try this: Let's pretend that I am okay with gay marriage, but am totally NOT okay with animal/human unions (I assume we are on the same page there). Let's say that a state issues marriage licenses to a man who is "marrying" his horse. Would you say that is actually marriage? Would you say or teach that yes, clearly those two are married, because the state says they are? Or would you really know that, although the state wants to call that a marriage, it is really no such thing? That the word has been misused in that case, and another word for that type of union would be appropriate, but not "marriage"?

    Marriage has not "always, always" been about ownership of women, so that does not apply. What one thing has always characterized marriage? Not its abuse, not its distortions, but its essence?

    As for God, it's not that we anthropomorphize Him, it's the other way around. He is not a reflection of us and our projections, we are a reflection of Him, the way a painting is a reflection of the artist. He absolutely has NO "human-like" motivations. We humans, when good, have God-like motivations. Again, God is not the "biggest being in the room", he is not a being at all. He is Being itself.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Alan, I am just going to assume that others have understood the "clock is not a pencil" analogy, even if you don't.

    Yes, I had romantic feelings toward my husband, but that is not essential to marriage. In fact, we could have had no romantic feelings at all towards each other, and been truly married. Millions of consensual arranged marriage around the globe, in every era, have been real marriages, even if they met on their wedding day (Golde and Tevye, anyone? Love that movie!). A romantic feeling, though lovely and I wish it for all married couples, has never been an essential part of what makes marriage marriage.

    You say that the state does not see marriage as conjugal, but then you have to explain why the state has always historically considered non-consummation as a grounds for civil annulment?

    Did I call Loretta Lynn's husband a pedophile? Why would you ask that? He was her husband.

    As an aside: Have you ever seen Coal Miner's Daughter? Great movie.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Leila
    You are confused. I understood your pencil clock analogy. It just wasn't a logical comparison to marriage/gay marriage. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand that.

    Yes one can get a civil annulment due to non consummation. Two persons can also marry without ever intending to consummate their marriage. See as the license doesn't question love it also doesn't question whether or not you are going to have sex.

    Sorry Leila, can you tell me exactly what a pedophile is?
    So I guess if you marry a young child it's ok? That's why I ask. He was 21, she 13. Can pedophiles only be gay? I mean you mention nambla so much, but don't you see the parallels to a 21 year old marrying a 13 year old? You must see that. C'mon how can you not?

    Also you do understand that there are many catholics who have no problem with gay marriage. I understand you think that makes them not catholic, so I say to you about the lesbian activist who says the drive for marriage is to destroy it that she really is not a gay activist. I know my gay friends who have married or want to it is most certainly not about destroying marriage.

    I think I saw Coal Miner's Daughter in the theatre when it came out. I have not seen it since then. I'm more a murder mystery or blow stuff up movie guy.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "It just wasn't a logical comparison to marriage/gay marriage."

    And I believe it was a logical analogy.

    "See as the license doesn't question love it also doesn't question whether or not you are going to have sex."

    Right, but sex is assumed. In fact, if sex is not part of the assumption of marriage, then why can't platonic sisters "marry"? The answer: Siblings can't marry because siblings shouldn't be having sex. So, sex is implied in marriage. Marriage and sex are connected inherently.

    Can 14-year-olds marry? Yes, they can. Can they marry older people? Yes, they can. Does this make the husband a pedophile? No, it doesn't. Loretta Lynn, for example, married with her consent and her parents' consent. Everyone was consenting, and she loved her husband for over 50 years, I think? They were husband and wife and raised a family and made a life. Are you saying that Doo was a pedophile?

    Have you read After the Ball? I am trying to figure out if it's worth a read. I hear it's an important work for anyone who wants to understand the gay rights movement.

    I'm more of a chick flick girl when it comes to movies. That or comedies. I need "light" stuff. (Well, except for Les Mis… that is a great movie.)

    ReplyDelete
  78. Alan, it appears that you seem a little confused by Leila's clock analogy. It's logical. It works. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand that. Maybe it's the conclusion that you're uncomfortable with, so you choose not to see the logic.

    Getting an annulment, as opposed to a divorce, means that the marriage never existed *due to non-consummation*. Therefore without consummation, it's not a real, true marriage. The license doesn't question you having sex, but it can be revoked and annulled if you do not, whereas it cannot be annulled simply because love doesn't exist between the two married parties.

    Pedophile: (noun) a person who is sexually attracted to children. Being gay or not doesn't actually matter (not that Leila ever inferred that).

    Yes, there are many catholics who are a-okay with marriage redefinition. So what? Do their opinions change, in any way shape or form, what is written in Canon Law, or what the Catholic church as an institution teaches? No. Our Church is not a democracy (Thank God!), and the Truth will still be the Truth, even if no-one follows it.

    Your analogy between the cafeteria catholics and the lesbian activist doesn't really work, because the gay activist doesn't have an institution that lays out precisely what it is that a gay activist should do, whereas a Catholic does.



    ReplyDelete
  79. Thank you, Emily!

    Alan, I did some research, and actually Loretta Lynn (for what it's worth) was actually 15 (just shy of 16) when she married. She lied about her age in the book she wrote! Many folks in that era married early, and I'm sure it's the same around the globe to this day. As Emily stated, a pedophile is attracted to children, specifically pre-pubescent. If you have seen Loretta Lynn's photo when she was about to be married, she is most definitely post-pubescent! I always thought she looked at least 16, and now that makes sense!

    ReplyDelete
  80. Alan - the answer to your question, with myriad examples of how forced acceptance of same-sex marriage is infringing upon religious liberty, can be found here: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/blog/why-the-catholic-church-and-gay-marriage-cannot-coexist/

    There are many more, as well. For example, this woman says that tolerance and acceptance is NOT enough - we must APPROVE of and CELEBRATE homosexual acts: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/Amelia/accept-and-tolerate-my-gay-kid-thats-not-good-enough_b_3021002.html

    ReplyDelete
  81. Johanne,

    I read your comments throughout the day and they really do confuse me. Can you tell me if I've summarized it correctly?

    You are saying, "If it's legal, it's real."

    Is that correct?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Just to finish my thought, Johanne...

    If you say yes, that's correct, then please understand that "gay marriage" isn't legal everywhere so it's not real everywhere.

    Also understand that we don't argue it that way.

    We do not believe that legal = real because we do not believe that man is the highest authority, nor do we believe that what is real is only a matter of what we can make-believe up.

    So we will argue with more teeth than just saying we want it to be so.

    On the other hand, if you say that isn't correct, could you please clarify?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Alan, I believe we established in the past that you do want to see religious freedom taken from us. Do you remember when I asked whether schools should teach that homosexuality is acceptable and whether they should teach that same-sex marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage? You said that yes, you do think that this is what schools should teach, even if it prevents me as a parent from being the one to teach such values to my own children. So you definitely believe that homosexual "rights" trump religious rights. And yes,"rights" belongs in quotes because neither you nor the state have any right whatsoever to undermine the religious upbringing of my children. I understand that the world in general will challenge the things I teach my children. Unfortunately, the world today will be happy to do so at ever younger ages. But we have the education system itself attempting to strip our rights as parents . And you think that that is proper. Am I remembering incorrectly?

    ReplyDelete
  84. Hi Stacy

    "You are saying, "If it's legal, it's real."

    No. I'm saying that if it's legal it's legal. And the gay marriage debate is about legality and nothing else. Modern marriage in this country has a tremendous number of legal ramifications. Gay people didn't create the fact that marriage has these legal ramifications, but it's the reality of the country we live in. And so the gay marriage rights movement is about same-sex relationships being able to benefit from those laws. That's it. The Supreme Court can't legislate anything other than what is legal and what is not. It cannot legislate what is "ordered" nor should it.

    And so perseverating about issues like the "essence" of marriage is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not legal marriage is possible for gay people. It exists therefore it's possible. I think what Leila is really saying is that civil marriage for gay people shouldn't be possible, which is another discussion.

    I think our exchanges would be a lot less frustrating if there were another word to describe what's involved with having a marriage license. I try to deal with it by distinguishing between civil marriage and marriage but that is not enough of a distinction to avoid the apples to oranges dynamic on this blog.

    I think that if civil unions had all the rights and privileges of a marriage license and if civil unions were recognized by both state and federal governments that we would have a much different debate. I personally have no attachment to the word "marriage" (in fact, I find it distasteful) but there are legal rights associated with the word and no one can change that.

    There are millions of gay people and millions of straight people who support gay civil marriage and so there will always be personalized agendas of endless variety (such as the lesbian Leila refers to). But it's a mistake to assume those individual agendas speak for the movement as a whole (I could provide you with several links to "CAtholics for Choice.") It's about the laws.

    I once heard a priest on a Catholic radio station say that Catholics don't have to have a marriage license for their marriage to be recognized by the church. And so there is that distinction between civil marriage and Catholic marriage. Same-sex couples can't be married in the Catholic church and as far as I'm concerned that's fine so I wish Catholics would just be satisfied with that. Why tread of someone's desire to avoid inheritance taxes on her partner's estate?

    I'm sorry this is long-winded. I tend to be verbose when I'm in a hurry! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  85. Johanne,

    "No. I'm saying that if it's legal it's legal. And the gay marriage debate is about legality and nothing else."

    That's as far as I read.

    That means, if it's legal, it's real.

    Logically...

    That's what you said.

    If it's legal, it's legal and nothing else.

    That means...

    If it's legal, it's real.

    You have to get the basics right, or the stuff you build on top it is meaningless. Like straw.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. and in future I'll remember not to put genuine effort into communicating with you as you didn't bother to read my entry. What does "real" mean? Real by what measure? Real to whom? to me, that is a nonsensical question. I have to get the "basics " right---what are you talking about???? Legal is legal. that's pretty basic and true and real. Anyway. No need to answer. I can see that there is no logic on this blog that is devoted to logic.

      Delete
  86. Johanne, I believe you are saying that if the state says gays can "marry", then they are "married". That makes gay "marriage" real to you. But if the state declared all clocks to be pencils, would clocks really be pencils? No, they would still be clocks.

    The problem certainly is the word "marriage". It's being used now to mean something that does not and cannot exist as "marriage". A gay union can be many things, but marriage it is not.

    Another word or term is needed, but the gay rights folks were not satisfied with the term "civil union". They wanted the term "marriage", and nothing else would do. That is why the word "equality" is thrown in the mix. It means, this is equal to that. And yet, it is not equal. It is not the same.

    Did anyone here read the book, After the Ball? It seems so relevant:

    http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987

    ReplyDelete
  87. "I believe you are saying that if the state says gays can "marry", then they are "married". That makes gay "marriage" real to you."

    No, that's not what I mean at all. I've said exhaustively what I mean but there is no willingness to see the issue so I will stop trying. And I have never heard of After the Ball

    ReplyDelete
  88. I know you are frustrated, and I am too, but let me try one more time, with just a basic question:

    Is gay 'marriage' a real marriage to you?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Dear God, this poor archbishop. Already hauled before a court for the charge of teaching Catholicism, now he is subjected to this vile and crude attack. He remained prayerful throughout. God bless him. This is from "progressive" Belgium. Is it American's future, too?

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-prays-while-topless-gay-activists-shout-curses-and-douse-him-wit

    ReplyDelete
  90. Johanne,

    I don't think you understand our frustration. What is offered as an argument for "gay marriage" is nothing substantially more than "I want to." We get so tired of long emotional appeals that are divorced from reality.

    "And the gay marriage debate is about legality and nothing else."

    No it's not! Maybe for you, but definitely not for us.

    "The Supreme Court can't legislate anything other than what is legal and what is not."

    That doesn't mean laws should have no basis in reality, or should not be ordered toward the good of mankind. Nor does it mean that just because people go around saying "I want it!" that laws should just be made to go with the flow.

    "Why tread of someone's desire to avoid inheritance taxes on her partner's estate?"

    Because that is very poor way to establish laws to govern society. If inheritance taxes are the problem, deal with inheritance taxes.

    Look, you don't like marriage, you don't see the good it provides to society as the fundamental unit, you don't see it as anything more, it seems, than a financial arrangement. Your emotional appeals to people like us who do care about marriage, who have seen what happens when it is dismantled, who are concerned about the impact of dismantling families on the future for our children -- those emotional appeals just won't hold any weight. We will push back.

    ReplyDelete
  91. "the gay marriage debate is about legality and nothing else."

    Johanne, do you really believe that? It is the least true thing you've said.

    Changing the definition of marriage is a wildly ridiculous way to deal with such things as inheritance tax or any tax inequity, or hospital visitation, or other legal issues of unfairness, which affect people who are not gay as well. Those issues could obviously be dealt with, in a way that actually would benefit more than just gay people. But that is NOT what the goal really is, so those issues are being used as an excuse to do much more. Johanne, you must realize that the goal of gay marriage is to force people, most especially children, to accept certain relationships as being equal to the relationship of a married man and woman. Ultimately, it WILL lead to the destruction of any definition of marriage because the change in definition does not have a basis in what the purpose of the institution of marriage always was. Instead of being about social stability most especially for the sake of children, it becomes all about the emotional wishes of two or more adults. And as PP and other organizations try to push sexualization of younger and younger children, it will be about two more or people. It won't be about commitment (admittedly, it already isn't but it should be). If we change the definition of marriage so that we can be "fair", then there is nothing to stand on to prevent it from continually changing until it, in fact, means nothing. If gays should be allowed to marry because they want validation of their relationship, then how in justice do you deny other couples or groups of people the same thing? It would be hypocrisy to disallow it based on thousands of years of human tradition that marriage is for two people (especially since that was not and is not always the case), or on the idea that for some unknown reason it must only involve TWO people, or for any other reason. The gay marriage argument is the "because I want it" argument and the "because I want you to have to accept my situation as equal to yours" argument and the "because I love him/her/them" argument. There is no logical reason at all to stop gay marriage. There is a logical reason to stop at one man and one woman. Two reason: biology, and societal stability for the sake of children produced by that biology. For crying out loud, everybody. It is not about the whining grown ups. It is about the children. That is all so obvious that it amazes me that this is even a discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I meant, "There is no logical reason at all to stop AT gay marriage". Wish we could edit these things!

      Delete
  92. "Why tread of someone's desire to avoid inheritance taxes on her partner's estate?"

    I'm curious, Johanne. Do you think Joyce and Sybil Burden should be able to marry?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Emily
    I understand the analogy. Everyone I have told it to scratches their heads in disbelief.
    Gay marriage/heterosexual marriage same basic principle. Clock and pencil completely different principles. Now you can say this illustrates the difference you see between gay marriage and straight marriage, but I will continue to say you are just being silly as they serve the same purpose.
    I hope you understand that, and stop thinking that I don't or am incapable of understanding it. I understand what Leila is trying to say. It's just not a true analogy.

    Now lets look at your annulment talk. Lets say the two persons of opposite sex are in a sexless marriage and they are fine with it and don't want an annulment. Is that still a real marriage? Are there other reasons an annulment can be obtained even after sexual activity?

    As far as the lesbian activist, yes you are correct there is not an authority telling activist what to think. So if that is the case why would you highlight one who says that the agenda is to destroy marriage and hold her as an example of all homosexual activist?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Sharon,
    If you were a holocaust disbeliever and you taught your kids that, would it be ok to teach it in school?

    I believe that PUBLIC schools need be more far reaching in what they teach. Public schools teach all.

    You still have the right to teach your children what you think is right. That is not being taken away from you at all.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

    Teaching in schools anything about homosexuality does not infringe on your "free exercise" of your religion.

    Do you think that schools should teach that homosexuality is bad and gay marriage less than heterosexual marriage?

    As stated many times by me, I don't care what you want to teach your children. I don't care what religion you follow. I'm not trying to do away with your right to practice your religion. But the first amendment does not give you the right to dictate how I live my life. And that is what you are trying to do.

    My gay marriage does not affect you at all. Why don't you see that.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Alan, yes, there are other reasons why marriages can be declared null. But we are talking about this. You never seem to answer this point. Let me ask it this way: Why does civil law allow for annulments of non-consummated marriages? If a woman came to the state and said that her husband and she only had anal sex or oral sex, and that she wanted her marriage declared null because of that, the state would concur. Why?

    "My gay marriage does not affect you at all. Why don't you see that."

    That's like saying, "Why do you care if babies are being aborted? It doesn't affect your right to life."

    Alan these things may not affect me directly in the narrow way you are implying, but they affect my society, they affect the common good, they affect children, they affect religious freedom, and on and on. Why don't you see that?

    ReplyDelete

  96. "That is all so obvious that it amazes me that this is even a discussion."

    Sharon, it's like we are Alice down the rabbit hole. Twilight Zone stuff. I read something recently about how this is the only "civil rights" push that was orchestrated by the elites, from the top down, and why we all acquiesced so quickly. "Gay marriage went from 'joke to dogma' in a decade". It's worth a read:

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/media/me0396.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's aptly titled, "Gay Marriage: A Case Study in Conformism"

      Delete
  97. Johanne, what you are suggesting is just like what happens with transgendered people and the law. The state declares, legally, that something false is now true.

    A transgendered person does not magically become the opposite sex, ever (check the DNA).

    But under the law, even by "thinking" that he is a woman, a man has the right to be declared a legal woman. It doesn't change the objective, scientific truth that he is a man, but legally, he is now a "woman", and we are all obliged to assent to this fiction. It's like we are all playing pretend. Scientific testing (or even a look at genitals, if the person has not had mutilating surgery yet), tells us objectively that the man is really a man. But the law suddenly says, "You're a woman now, and no one has the right to argue it, because we have declared it so." In other words, the law has codified a fantasy.

    It is the same with gay "marriage". The law may state that two men are "married", but it cannot make that true or real.

    Stacy is right. We cannot base laws on the philosophy of "I want it". Laws must be based on what is real.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Leila,
    We will not even start to speak of all the questions you all consistently avoid asking.
    We will not even start to speak of all the analogies I make that you simply don't even attempt to understand.

    That being said, why are you so easily avoiding all the other ways annulments can be obtained?

    I'm doing research into whether what you say is true or not. Will let you know what I find.

    But lets see if you will answer, if two heterosexuals marry but never intend to have sex, is that a real marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Alan, what does it matter that there are other causes for a declaration of nullity? Here are some: Force? Yes. Fraud? Yes. Non-consummation? Yes.

    You said that marriage was a "joining of two to create a family". You did not mention sex or romance as being any part of that joining, so I asked if two platonic sisters (widows) could marry and raise their kids together? Can they? Is that what marriage is? Or is there something else to it?

    If a man and woman have the parts and the ability to have a conjugal union (i.e., the element of marriage that makes it unique among all other relationships), then yes, they can have a valid marriage. If one of them decides later that they would like to consummate (which is the right and privilege of marriage), and the other spouse refuses, then the first spouse has grounds for annulment.



    ReplyDelete
  100. Alan, there is a difference between denying a historic reality (the Holocaust) and pushing an agenda on children. We have a right to give our own children a solid foundation on areas such as gay sex and marriage, and if the schools are going to work against us at younger and younger ages, then we are being denied the right to be the primary formers of our children's religious understanding at these ages. it doesn't matter whether you understand that or not, Alan. It is true whether you understand it, and it is true whether you acknowledge it. You are willing to deny our religious freedom as being secondary to your agenda.

    Also, you did not touch on the fact that there is no reason to stop at TWO in the definition of marriage. I think you have indicated before that you don't really care what anyone else does with marriage, as far as further changing the definition. At least, you have said you wouldn't be interested in joining them if they want to fight for an expanded definition of marriage "equality", that it was their fight, not yours. I am thinking,though, that you also would not work against them. So are you ok with changing the definition of marriage to be something like this? "The legal recognition of a relationship between two or more people who desire such legal recognition and who are sufficiently distantly related." Does that sound pretty good? And by the way, what if there is a group who are married, and someone else wants to join them? Should there be a provision for this as well? I suppose my definition is unfair because it would keep two sisters from marrying the same man. I suppose they are ok, though, as long as they are not seeking to marry each other. But if they wanted to marry each other as well as the man, they would not be allowed. We have to draw the line somewhere. Or do we?

    As far as the discussion on annulments - do the laws in states that recognize same-sex marriage actually say anything about annulling a gay marriage for lack of consummation? I had read recently - and I have looked but can't find the article - that the law is silent on this in other countries that allow same-sex marriage even though the law makes provision for annulment of heterosexual marriage on the grounds of lack of consummation. Does anyone know what the situation is with this? The article indicated that there is a problem with defining consummation of a same sex marriage. I am strictly asking whether the law in any states addresses this issue. Sorry if this was covered and I missed it.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Leila
    Two sisters or any familial marriage has been answered by me many times. Not sure why you don't seem aware of that.

    Many reasons for annulment. Thats my point. Perhaps the reason for the non conjugal annulment has something to do with fraud, or the fact that when said laws were established they were established by men who wanted what they wanted, i.e. the "right" to have sex with their wives and finish in their vagina every single time.

    It's obvious to me that you have simply stopped reading what I have written so maybe it is pointless to continue with you.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Sharon,
    The historic reality is homosexuals have always existed. If that is the case then should that not be taught in schools? Just because they have been treated badly doesn't mean they have not existed.

    Stonewall uprising in the sixties, thats a real thing. Should it not be taught in a history class? The whole gay rights movement (and you can argue all you want about rights v privileges, to me they are rights) is now historic. Can that be taught in school?

    Again YOU seem to be picking and choosing what you want to teach all children. If it doesn't conform to your wish then it should not be taught. I think I have summed that up correctly.

    "it doesn't matter whether you understand that or not, Alan. It is true whether you understand it, and it is true whether you acknowledge it. You are willing to deny our religious freedom as being secondary to your agenda."

    I understand what you are saying. I acknowledge what you are saying. It's funny that you think I am willing to deny your religious freedom, but you don't see all the people's freedom that you are denying. And again, you still have the freedom to teach your children your religion.

    So I'll ask, at what age is it ok to teach that homosexuality is ok?

    You seem to remember so much about what I have written Sharon. Why don't you remember that I have written that to me marriage is about commitment. I don't believe that one can be truly committed to more than one person.

    And you have no idea if I will fight against it or not. You don't know me, so please keep your assumptions about me to yourself. There are things I will fight for and things I won't. So maybe next time ask a question instead of assuming.

    Interesting question on the annulment for non consummation. I'll have to look in to that when I get some time.

    ReplyDelete
  103. There was a lot of good info in this post! I wanted you to know I passed on your links and info about Eden Foods in my quick takes this week (and gave you a shout out). Here's the link:

    http://himwhommysoulloves.blogspot.com/2013/04/7-quick-takes-friday-vol-10.html

    ReplyDelete
  104. Alan, if marriage is a joining of two people to form a family as you've said -- and has nothing to do with sex -- then there is no reason why two widowed sisters could not be married to raise their kids together.

    Stephanie, thank you for that! I think I'm going to use the NFP montage for my new Quick Takes!

    ReplyDelete
  105. Leila,
    Where have I said marriage has nothing to do with sex?
    Remember I am the one who has the romantic notion that marriage actually has something to do with love.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Alan said:

    "And you have no idea if I will fight against it or not. You don't know me, so please keep your assumptions about me to yourself. There are things I will fight for and things I won't. So maybe next time ask a question instead of assuming."

    I did ask you a question, but you did not really answer it. You said that you believe that commitment is only possible between two people. In spite of your personal opinion, when polygamists and polyamorists insist on having their relationships recognized as marriage, will you or will you not support them? I do recall you saying that you would consider any further changes in the definition of marriage to be the fight of the groups that desire such change but it would involve looking through pages and pages of comments to confirm that. So why don't you answer directly. Would you support any further changes to the definition of marriage? Or should your definition of marriage prevail? Or does it not really matter?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Sharon, your comment reminded me of this article:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/we-hate-to-say-we-told-you-so-same-sex-marriage-polygamy

    Which includes the following:

    As Dr. [Robert P.] George pointed out in “First Things,” when Christians pointed out the logical link between same-sex marriage and polygamy, proponents of same-sex marriage rejected the connection. They insisted that “no one is arguing for the legal recognition of polygamous or polyamorous relationships as marriages!”

    George writes in response, “That was then; this is now.” The “then” he referred to was last week; the now is today.

    George predicts that Keenan’s article “will not produce a single serious critique by a major scholar or activist from the same-sex marriage movement.”

    ReplyDelete
  108. Sharon,
    I answered your question. I didn't "touch on it" I answered it.

    Yes I did say it was their fight. Not denying that.

    Would I fight it? Yes.

    If you paid attention you would have seen that several times I have said what we are arguing about is all opinion. It's my opinion that we are not seeking to change the definition of marriage. It is my opinion that gay marriage will not adversely affect society. You hold the opposite differing opinion.

    Now please answer the question that you completely ignored.

    At what age is it ok to teach that homosexuality is ok?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Alan, Sharon keeps getting an error message when trying to respond, so she emailed her answer to me, to post here. So, from Sharon:

    ***
    Thank you for answering directly. Can I clarify? You said "Would I fight it? Yes." I want to be sure I understand. You mean you would fight against a further change in the definition, or you would fight in favor of it?

    "At what age is it ok to teach that homosexuality is ok?"

    It is never an acceptable age for you to "teach" my children that homosexuality is ok.

    The parents have the right and responsibility to express their beliefs on sexual matters, and to educate their children at the time the parents recognize as the best time for the child. It is not your job, not the school's job. Could the schools please, please, please just get our children in a position to compete academically with other Western nations in math and science? Prepare them to write at a college level by the time they finish high school? Is that asking too much? Or is the goal of an American education to educate them as young as possible on sexual matters, to be dependable little Planned Parenthood clients? If it is the latter, then we can forget out the future of America, because there isn't going to be one. And the topic of homosexuality is obviously a special one, Alan, in that it by definition involves sexual matters. It's not just another school subject.

    My children will never be taught by me that homosexuality is ok. Nor will they ever be allowed to use the word "gay" as a slur, or to treat any human being as less than themselves for any reason. Like many of the parents here, it is my hope that they will have a good grounding both in sexual values and in the treatment of other people. They will have those values challenged and I hope that they are well-educated enough to be able to further both their knowledge of the truth and their ability to defend it.
    ***

    ReplyDelete
  110. Obama just stood before a thousand Planned Parenthood supporters and asked God to bless them. I am wondering if anyone wants to look at this material from Planned Parenthood, that is meant for children as young as ten years old, and tell me if this is something God would bless for our children:

    http://www.all.org/article/index/id/MTE5MjE/

    Even the left-wing New York Times and Washington Post refused a full-page ad with this graphic on it, claiming it was not appropriate for an adult audience.

    Can anyone appreciate why we find PP corrupting to our children, and that it must have no place in our schools (or our taxpayer funding)?

    And can anyone wonder who is sexualizing children?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (And I'm certain that God does not bless the bloody violent work of Planned Parenthood, either, where numberless of His own precious children are slaughtered. Can you even imagine someone calling down God's blessing on this evil organization?)

      Delete
  111. Sharon,

    I will fight against it.

    As far as teaching your child homosexuality is ok, well I'm ok with schools not teaching it. But then we need to remove all books that show heterosexual love to be ok as well.

    No more Snow White, no more Cinderella, so many books will be gone. If it's not up to the schools to teach your child about sexuality at all then it must be avoided completely. See that is the only way it will be acceptable.

    So Sharon, what happens if one of your children is gay?

    ReplyDelete
  112. If one of my children were gay I would of course love them as much as the rest of 'em, and they would know it. I would also grieve for them and for the cross they carry. They would know what I think of living the gay lifestyle and if they were making that mistake I would pray fervently that they would leave it, and I would really not be completely happy if they never did leave it. Then again if one of my daughters decided to move in with a boyfriend I would not be completely happy until that ended, either. I couldn't be happy if the souls of any of my children were in danger, and I would worry about the unhappy consequences that they were risking in this world as well as the risk of losing happiness forever in the next.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Actually, Alan, heterosexual couples are the norm, even today, and there was never a need to add sex ed for kindergarteners to explain why they have a male father and a female mother. Compare that to today, when gay marriage is used as a reason to supposedly need to cover these subjects for all young children. And if you think PP, et al, are just reaching children with what even liberals would consider age-appropriate, then I would refer you back to Leila's links. There are very obviously people being allowed access to our children who fully intend to share far more than any child would even be curious about (assuming their parents are not just leaving anything and everything on the tv and computer), so if you say they will just make benign statements about these things, I will say that you can be glad you don't have to worry about any children of your own in schools, because it isn't true.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Alan, do all types of romance need to be shown to kindergarteners (there are other types besides just heterosexual and homosexual adult romances)? Why are we leaving other groups out? Why not polygamous love stories and other types of sexual orientations that the majority may be bigoted against? I am serious… if moms and dads are not the norm for kids (even though that's where kids come from), then why not showcase all romances equally?

    ReplyDelete
  115. I find the fact that you would fight against a re-redefinition of marriage very interesting. So you think the definition actually matters, and changing it would have a negative societal impact? So do i! You said "It is my opinion that we are not seeking to change the definition of marriage." Do you mean that no group beyond gays is seeking to change the definition? Oh they are. They just aren't loud enough for you to hear or acknowledge them yet. And even though you agree that it would be detrimental to change the definition of marriage, I have a biological basis for my view of marriage and you don't. In fact, polygamists could say that their commitments (which, they could say, are more generous than yours or mine since we can only see committing to one person while they think they have the ability to commit to many) have more bearing on society if their arrangements have a heterosexual element that could of itself produce children. If you definition of marriage is fairer than mine, it can only be because it is more inclusive. So the only way to make it even fairer is to make it even more inclusive. Of course, I don't think it's about fairness at all, I think it is about biology, and no one makes biology unfair. But ignoring biology is unfair to the children that that biology produces.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Sharon,
    Have you always followed all the rules of catholicism?


    "Actually, Alan, heterosexual couples are the norm, even today, and there was never a need to add sex ed for kindergarteners to explain why they have a male father and a female mother."

    Your point? But I agree kindergarteners do not need sex ed. So we should remove all books that show any kind of sexual (even kissing or love) relationships. I mean after all no one has the right to teach your child about that.

    " Compare that to today, when gay marriage is used as a reason to supposedly need to cover these subjects for all young children."

    Umm......what? I don't see how a fairy tale about two princes is any different than Snow White. Except Snow White shows heterosexual love.

    " And if you think PP, et al, are just reaching children with what even liberals would consider age-appropriate, then I would refer you back to Leila's links. "

    Do you really think that all liberals believe the exact same thing? Or did you intend to say age-innappropriate?


    "There are very obviously people being allowed access to our children who fully intend to share far more than any child would even be curious about (assuming their parents are not just leaving anything and everything on the tv and computer), so if you say they will just make benign statements about these things,"

    Indeed there are, heck they even include catholic priests.

    " I will say that you can be glad you don't have to worry about any children of your own in schools, because it isn't true."

    Please define my own. Are you meaning that because I don't have biological children I don't have any children to worry about? Can and should one only worry about their own biological children?

    As you don't know me I'll give ya a little info. I have one beautiful 18 year old god daughter whom I helped raise. She is a great kid. She has no issue with her gay uncle. Or his husband. Heck she even read at my wedding. I was (and continue to be ) so proud of her.
    I have another 10 year old god daughter. Just watched her skating show last week.
    5 nephews, all under the age of 14. Love em all like they were my own.

    So please rethink saying things like I don't have to worry about my own kids in school.

    When I said we I meant the homosexuals. That is all. Why do you seem to read so much into my simple statements?

    Yes biologically a man and a woman are needed to create a baby. Ive never denied that. But they are not biologically needed to raise said baby. Thats all I can say to you on this.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Leila
    What religion should be taught in schools?
    What religion should be followed?

    ReplyDelete
  118. Have you always followed all the rules of catholicism?


    By that do you mean, have I ever sinned? Yes, I have. Like you, I have done evil, and I know it. I don't know it as well as I should, because I probably, like you, gloss over things and tell myself that whatever I did is not that bad.

    “Umm......what? I don't see how a fairy tale about two princes is any different than Snow White. Except Snow White shows heterosexual love.”

    Which is a huge difference.

    "And if you think PP, et al, are just reaching children with what even liberals would consider age-appropriate, then I would refer you back to Leila's links. "

Do you really think that all liberals believe the exact same thing? Or did you intend to say age-innappropriate?

    No, I meant to say age-appropriate. I think my point is pretty clear, that PP is NOT providing age-appropriate information, and even liberals recognize that. But somehow what is obvious to the NY Times is not obvious to PP. Liberals thinking the same thing? I don't know what that has to do with anything.

    "I will say that you can be glad you don't have to worry about any children of your own in schools, because it isn't true."

Please define my own. Are you meaning that because I don't have biological children I don't have any children to worry about? Can and should one only worry about their own biological children?

    Alan, good grief, I care about children other than my own, too, and I am sure your godchildren are very important to you. So good, you have reason to want PP to stay as far away as possible from them, just as I would have them stay as far away as possible from my own children, and your godchildren, and anyone else's children.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Thanks for helping get the word out about Eden Foods! The site has seen a lot of traffic from your post, and I can't express my appreciation enough!

    - Joe Grabowski, www.StandingWithEdenFoods.com

    ReplyDelete
  120. Sharon it was a simple question. Have you always followed the rules of the catholic church? Not have you sinned, not have you done evil, but have you always followed the rules?

    Your comment about PP still makes no sense.

    So you care about other peoples children, but I am lucky that I don't have my own so I don't have to care? That is what you said originally. So I ask, do I care or do I not?



    And you say it is never ok to teach YOUR children homosexuality is ok. So I ask this. Should god be in the schools? Should religion be taught in schools?

    Leila left the question unanswered (which I find hilarious given that she has no qualms about pointing out, almost demanding, that I have left questions unanswered. And oh so many times I have already answered those questions) will you answer it?

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!