Wednesday, August 1, 2012

What I did on my July vacation! And how much I missed you!

First off, I learned that maybe next time I will only take a two week break!

So much going on in the world that I wanted to comment on, and I missed you guys (all of you, even Miss Gwen and Michelle and the other secularists on the block)!

Of course, I saw some of you on facebook (I sort of got back on that sooner than planned), and on my Orphan Report blog, and on email…. I wasn't as "gone" as I tried to be. Oh, and from the few blog headlines and facebook updates I did see, there was a lot going on in your lives! Wow, some major announcements and life changes I missed! I'll have to figure out how to catch up.

I did not get all the reading done that I'd hoped to, but I am just giddy about the book I did read! Remember the "If you only read one book this year, make it this one" post from last year? Well, this year's book recommendation has to be:

From Atheism to Catholicism: How Scientists and Philosophers Led Me to the Truth

I was underlining and scribbling margin notes like a mad woman, because I was learning so much! Many "eureka" moments. The author, Kevin Vost, Psy.D., is brilliant (a mensa member) and highly educated, but able to put things simply so that even I could understand. So many things came clear, and that was exciting!

Ack, I hope you'll all read it! I will be dedicating an entire post to it, soon-ish.


Another super cool July happening is that my college roommate and friend just happens to have a daughter in the Olympics! Maybe you've seen Aly Raisman, gymnast extraordinaire and one of the Fab Five who just won the Olympic gold medal for the USA?! Here she is, just a few hours ago atop the medal stand (second from the right):

And she's not done yet! She will be competing in the individual all-around, beam and floor finals.

Oh, and here is her mom, exactly 22 years ago (July 28), at my wedding:

More about that day, and the poofy hair and sleeves, here.

You may have seen her mom already, actually, as she has recently gone viral herself. *Originally I had a video posted here, but it's been taken off YouTube for copyright reasons. Here is the official NBC version, but without the awesome audio: 

Ha ha ha! Oh, I think back on our college days, and I can imagine the fun we would have had laughing about that one, Lynni!! You are awesome. Hillside D-14 would never have recovered.


Another old and dear friend has been in my heart this past month, but for a very different reason. Beth Rossman, the funniest and and most joyful woman you'd ever want to meet, passed away unexpectedly just over a week ago. The loss of such an amazing person has been hard on our community. I have so much I want to say about her, so much I want to tell you…but I will ask instead that you pray for the repose of Beth's soul (she was very close to our Lord and our Lady), and also pray for her husband and three sons who will miss her terribly. They know that they will see her again in the heavenly reunion that we all await with great hope!

Beth, with Danya's daughter at our little school.

One of Beth's favorite quotes from St. Teresa of Avila speaks to the wounded hearts of all who mourn her loss:

Let nothing trouble you,
let nothing frighten you.
All things are passing;
God never changes.
Patience obtains all things.
He who possesses God lacks nothing:
God alone suffices.

Requiescat in pace, dear friend.


And July brought some joyful news for a little blind boy that I called my Achilles' Heel…. Dear Andrew, the five-year-old languishing in a crib in Eastern Europe, has a family coming to rescue him! Wanna see how he'll be going from a nightmare to a dream? Check it out, and Andrew lovers, I dare you not to cry:

I'm planning on going broke to help him get home, and yes, I'm going to be begging for dollars from my loyal readers and friends. But to sweeten the pot, anyone who contributes a few bucks to Andrew's adoption fund (donate button is on his blog, top right) will be entered into a drawing to win a personalized, signed copy of my book,Prodigal Daughters: Catholic Women Come Home to the Church. Well, I didn't write the whole book, but I did write one of the chapters!

Or, if you dislike me but still want to donate, I can leave the book unsigned and send it to you for target practice, vandalizing, or book burning. I will not be offended!

And to keep it all legal, you may also enter without donating, by simply becoming a "follower" and/or email subscriber to Andrew's blog, and/or linking it to your own.

Whichever way you choose to enter, please email me and let me know (use the link under my photo, above right), or I won't know to put you in the running! Monetary donations will get you five entries, and linking, following or subscribing will get you one. Winner will be chosen by in a couple of weeks, after my begging ends.

Andrew thanks you for loving him!!

Hang on baby boy! You don't know it, but your mama's coming!

Well, that's my little bit of housekeeping before launching back into the culture wars and all sorts of controversy! Lots of that up ahead.

And later today, I'll be off to get me some Chik-fil-A! How 'bout a chicken sandwich, waffle fries and a deeeeelicious handspun chocolate milkshake? Care to join me?



  1. Welcome back! You were missed, lol.

  2. Yeah!! You're back!! I know I missed you terribly!! BTW, the video you posted has been blocked so I didn't get to see it. Bummer!

    I am sooooooooooo happy for Andrew!


  3. I'll be joining your for breakfast and lunch at CFA....! Welcome back! ;)

  4. Headed to CFA for breakfast ourselves :)

  5. Welcome back! Missed your posts. How cool that your former roommate is mother to an Olympian!

  6. After reading this article:

    and seeing your shout-out to Chik-fil-a, I think maybe you need to recant or re-think all you've written about how much you "love" gay people just not gay sex.


    1. I'm so tired of this free love do as you wish mentality. Anything goes right Miss G. There are no boundaries anymore...Men turn into women to date men. Women turn into men to date women. Men "marry" men, women "marry" women. Oh and I have to support that! Ummm, not gonna happen, thankyouverymuch. :)

  7. The whole Chick-Fil-A thing is blown way out of proportion, Miss G.

    Whether one shares their views or not, does what we have for lunch need to be politicized? If people don't like what Dan Cathy said, and want to boycott, good on them. If people want to support Dan Cathy, good on them.

    But at the end of the day it is a restaurant chain, and politicizing it is pointless.

    If I get my oil changed at Jiffy Lube, I don't ask the mechanic what his views are on abortion, and drive away if I don't agree with them. If I go to a department store to buy clothes, I don't ask the cashiers what their views on government spending are, and take my business elsewhere if they disagree.

    Even if you think Dan Cathy is a tremendous jerk, that doesn't make him ineligible to own a restaurant chain.

  8. Hi Miss G! Gosh, I never had to delete a comment of yours before, but I just deleted your second one, which is a link to a vulgar video (which I stopped watching after the first couple of lines by the drag queens). Seriously, that's your sense of humor? I think I will be ordering an extra chicken sandwich.

    Back to a question you never answered last time after being asked multiple times, since I have you here: What is your opinion of porn?

    As for your other article. Um, I am supposed to be horrified that Chick-Fil-A supports (gasp!) Family Research Council or Fellowship of Christian Athletes? The horror!

    Or that he has the opinion that praying could help a person who struggles with sin? Outrageous!

    Or that one woman in one store has sued one store manager in one restaurant in Georgia for wrongful termination? I mean, what are the odds of something that rare happening in America? (yes, sarcasm.) I'm gonna bet that there might even be more employees in a $4 billion dollar company who has sued someone somewhere.

    Sorry, Miss Gwen, that's what you've got for your proof that Mr. Cathy hates gays and "discriminates" against them?

    I think I'll buy a large sweet tea, too.

    And here is a video spoof that is actually funny, not indecent:

    Guys, you all can even watch this with your kids!

  9. My main complaint about Chick-Fil-A is that the Sweet Tea is literally double the price of McDonald's Sweet Tea and is not in fact any better, let alone twice as good.

  10. Nicholas, I agree and I do prefer McDonald's sweet tea! And I will continue to buy it, without grilling the manager about his religious views. Go figure. Maybe I am just tolerant? :)

  11. I will be at CFA for lunch AND I'm buying a gift certificate or two just for the heck of it!!!

    Welcome back, Leila!

    STILL have not been able to look through Andrew's momma's blog. I'm too emotionally unstable right now lol. So happy for him!

  12. Heehee, I'll be WITH Kara at CFA for lunch!

    I'm already excited about it. Yummmm...waffle fries and clean play areas for our kiddos to play in.

    Oh, and clean bathrooms, pleasant (and polite!) service, and Christian muzak playing in the background.

    I will miss CFA back east. :(

  13. Welcome back! I think Miss Gwen was waiting with itchy trigger finger to hit SEND the minute you got the post up!


  14. Oh, and welcome back, of course!!

  15. Heidi - where back east are you going? CT????

  16. I'm taking my kids to Chick-fil-a for supper tonight!

    Miss Gwen, might I suggest this article from a pro-gay marriage liberal like yourself? I like her view of the situation:

    A brief excerpt:

    In our democratic republic, a man whose religion opposes gay marriage gives money to prevent… gay marriage? Yeah. This totally justifies mayors of large cities coming out and grandstanding and saying this man’s business – which, btw, does not provide bits of fried gay person but bits of fried chicken – is not welcome there. It totally justifies calling the man a Nazi. Because, of course – Sarah nods sagely – he’s been advocating killing all gay people.

    No? Because that’s what calling him a Nazi implies. (Mind you, even if he advocated it, it wouldn’t make him the moral equivalent of Hitler – it would just make you the moral equivalent of stupid – because he doesn’t have the armies or police force to enforce it. Our city has a KKK parade — or used to — which was a great occasion to get out with the anti-KKK signs, that’s all. And THOSE people believe in killing gays — and Jews and Catholics. BUT they don’t have the power to enforce it, so they’re just nuts we can make fun of.) There are places that kill gays – mostly in the Middle East. Cuba imprisons them (at least if they’re the passive partner, which means a guy who is raped can get imprisoned for life.)

    Also, Miss Gwen, I assume you've stopped buying gasoline, given that many members of OPEC not only oppose homosexuality but actively support executing homosexuals.

  17. Maureen - Maine, right outside Portland

  18. Gwen, Barack Obama said this in 2008:

    "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

    Let's assume for the sake of argument that he was being truthful. Was he a hater then? A bigot?

    JoAnna, great points by that lady. You know, it always surprises me when people who support man/woman marriage (like, everyone, everywhere, for the entire history of mankind) are now seen as epitomizing the heights of bigotry and "hatred", but those who advocate for the right to dismember human beings in the womb and throw their body parts in the trash are considered loving and enlightened.

    Crazy world, methinks.

  19. and seeing your shout-out to Chik-fil-a, I think maybe you need to recant or re-think all you've written about how much you "love" gay people just not gay sex.

    Oh, yes, Leila "recant and re-think" because, you know, it's so honorable and righteous to persecute a business owner based on his Christian view. Smell that sarcasm?

    He's selling food for consumption. He's not issuing conversion by the sword, gwen.

    Welcome back, mama -- you are all kinds of awesome!

  20. I went to CFA for breakfast and we went back for lunch. We weren't able to wait because I was too pregnant but we waited for 40 minutes. I gave my dollar, dollar bills to the owner to make a donation and said we will be back for dinner, Sir!

    With lines out the door and parking down the street, congested traffic that took forever to get out of. I have faith in America! Bring it, baby!

    Then the reporter asked me why I was at CFA today and I said because I support TRADITIONAL marriage and Christian based businesses. We came for breakfast, we are here for lunch and I'll be back for dinner. If this baby decides to come between now and dinner, I will still be here! ;)

    And I'm going to send all the pictures I took to these nice liberal governors.

    Bring it!

  21. I am thanking God you are back. I've felt slightly alone in the world. And I wish we had a Chick-Fil-A near us to go to.
    But as far as Sweet Tea, not for me.

    I'm from the Midwest, we like our tea like we like our lives, Cold and Bitter!

  22. Bethany, LOL!

    Yep, you wouldn't feel alone if you were at Chick-Fil-A right now. It's chock full of people seething with "hate", unlike the loving folks in Gwen's (deleted) video recommendation, which shows drag queens in front of a Chick-Fil-A, singing lyrics like, "After taking some dudes from behind…" and full on mockery of the Holy Family. Keeping it classy!

  23. Why not try watching this video, Gwen? This gay man understands that people can disagree with his lifestyle but still respect him as a person:

  24. JoAnna, I love Antoine Dodson! Ever since his "They're climbing in your window, snatchin' your people up…" fame! When he saved his sister from a rapist. Seriously, I am a huge fan! Thanks for that video!!

  25. Brandon Vogt really says it well, and the first part of his last paragraph NAILS it:

    With the recent Chick-fil-A controversy, I now realize modern man is almost incapable of distinguishing between these four things:

    1. Approval and Implicit Condemnation. Just because you support one thing doesn't mean you're viciously antagonist toward another (i.e. "anti-" the opposite.) If Dan Cathy supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman, that doesn't mean he ipso facto "hates gay people" or is "anti-gay."

    2. Disagreeing and Hating. I disagree with ideas all the time. This does not necessitate hating the person who proposed them. Your beliefs are not your identity.

    3. Beliefs and People. This is somewhat similar to #2. Rejecting a belief does not equal rejecting a person. You can reject the validity of same-sex marriage on philosophical and social grounds while still profoundly loving people with same-sex attraction. I reject at least some opinions or actions from each of my friends (such as "double-rainbows are boring" or "playing the lottery is wise.") They in turn reject plenty of my own. But we don't hate each other. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our relationship is grounded on a communion of persons, not a symmetry of beliefs.

    4. Bigotry and Disagreement. The definition of bigot is "one unwilling to tolerate opinions different than his own"--not "someone who disagrees with me." Toleration doesn't require agreement, merely recognition and respect. (Ironically, those quickest to accuse people of bigotry are often bigoted about their flawed definition of "bigot.")

    The solution to these failures is not more dialogue. It's better philosophy, logic, and reason. Unfortunately, until two people are capable of making these distinctions, healthy, productive dialogue about same-sex marriage is almost impossible.

    Emphasis mine. Thanks, Brandon!

  26. Nicholas, normally I'd agree with you-it's difficult and often feels futile, at least, to even attempt avoiding huge corporations whose politics you might disagree with-trying to find clothing made in America by Americans for instance is a true skill these days.

    And yeah, I still drive a car even though I support finding alternative energy sources and should I find myself in a desolate landscape dying of thirst and Chik-fil-a was the only establishment around, I would probably pony up for an iced tea.

    However, when Chik-fil-a gives a sizeable amount of money to the family research council so that Peter Sprigg can tell us he'd like to see gay people exported out of the country...well, I can easily live without waffle fries or fried chicken if that's where my money goes when it becomes part of Chik-fil-a earnings. Announcing you support a biblical definition of marriage is one thing...announcing you support people who would like gay people to be exported from the country (seriously), that's a whole new bag of tricks. I don't find a "love the person, hate the sin" mentality in that stupidity, quite frankly.

    Leila, don't you just laugh at the phrase, "I'd like some meat without your Bible"? Sorry you don't have much of a sense of humor...if you'd seen the whole clip, you'd realize the message is one of "well, you can't really stop gay people from enjoying chik-fil-a or eating there even if you do hate them"

    Nubby, do you always have to sound so pissed off? I can just hear you stomping your feet and yelling at the computer. Count to 10 and then breathe.....

  27. Looking at facebook and all the photos folks are posting, the Chick-Fil-A's around the nation are backed up like crazy, with crowds wrapping all the way around the buildings. My daughter and her friend told me the are in a very long line. Now that's some "community organizing". Peaceful, decent, lots of patience, smiles, friendly service. No hate that I can see. Just love of our nation and love of free speech. So glad that not everyone is intimidated by bullies.

  28. Nubby, do you always have to sound so pissed off? I can just hear you stomping your feet and yelling at the computer. Count to 10 and then breathe.....

    Heh, pissed off? I actually reply to you with a grin. You'd never have the pleasure of getting my goat, sorry. Sounds like you're the angry one. Alas, it's your default position when you have no reasoned come back.

    Leila, Brandon's #3 is great. Disagreeing w/ gay marriage doesn't mean he isn't selling chicken to gay people.

  29. Miss G, much of your recommended video was clever, and I really did like their singing! But that doesn't negate the vulgarity, classlessness, distortions, mockery and mean-spiritedness of the rest of it. Not to mention that there are no Bibles served at CFA, and that they serve gays in as friendly a manner as they do adulterers, fornicators, liars and thieves, including sinners like me. So, not sure anyone was trying to stop gays from eating there (do you have any evidence of that?), nor do I see the "hate" you see everywhere.

    Where does Family Research Council support shipping off gays? Could you show me that policy or belief? Thanks!

    Also, why not answer the questions? What about Obama? Was he a hater waaaay back in '08? And, what is your opinion of porn? You never did tell me.

  30. I guess my point is, I love humor (goodness, you've never had any laughs here??) and especially satire, but only if it's actually relevant to something. That video was not exactly on point. Yes, I watched the whole thing, even the anti-Christian bigotry. I ended up feeling sorry for those folks, just like when I see them putting themselves on display in crude ways in gay "pride" parades. It's almost like a train wreck. But these are real people, and they are obviously wounded on a dozen different levels. It's funny in a superficial sense, but deeper down, it just evokes great sadness.

  31. Just got back from Chick-Fil-A! Spent an hour and a half there! So great! The employees are so friendly and happy, despite the lines wrapped around the entire building and the drive through line holding up on-going traffic! They even gave me extra food! What an amazing experience! So glad to support them!

  32. Cecily also told me there were cameras and radio stations there, but I am sure it was all conservative media and not any of the liberal media. Wonder if NBC will cover this incredible thing that is happening all over the nation? After all, if fourteen elderly feminists gather for an abortion sit-in, they make it the lead story, but if millions flock to Chick-fil-A to support marriage and free speech… will they give it any airplay at all? We shall see….

  33. Good grief, it's Leila's first day back and we're debating about lunch???

    Leila, that is so cool about your college roommate and daughter! I have been watching the Olympics religiously and yes, saw that they won the gold! So proud of those girls, they worked so hard! And it's funny that your roommate is the same lady that I sort of, not in a mean way, made fun of to my husband. No harm meant, I promise! I just couldn't help laughing at all her expressions as she watched her daughter on the bars. I can't believe how intense it must be to watch, so I know I would be making the same funny faces!

    So sorry to hear about your friend, Beth. I will pray for her on my Friday devotions. I normally pray the Stations of the Cross for the souls in purgatory.

    On the flip side of the strange Chick-Fil-A controversy, at least you know that Gwen must be checking in with your blog on a regular basis!

  34. Yeah, I'd like to seen Gwen pony up some proof that the Family Research Council and/or Chick-fil-a supports, encourages, and condones exporting gays.

  35. I know she's busy like the rest of us, but hopefully she has not left the discussion!

  36. ha ha! Becky, to be fair, it was I who brought up lunch! :)

    Thank you for praying for my friend Beth, and no worries, as I laughed at Lynn, too! Aly even tweeted the clip of her parents! :) Too fun! Too bad the videos have all been taken down.

    And I hope Gwen always comments, as I consider her a member of the Bubble family. I truly like her, and would love to have coffee if she ever came to town. I still say she'd make a great Catholic one day. Look at Leah Lebresco!

  37. “In our democratic republic, a man whose religion opposes gay marriage gives money to prevent… gay marriage? Yeah. This totally justifies mayors of large cities coming out and grandstanding and saying this man’s business”

    I completely agree that it was inappropriate to ban CFA from the borders of major cities unless they were somehow showing disparate treatment to gay customers/employees.

    I, however, am disappointed that you imply individual liberals choosing to boycott CFA is bullying or intimidation or somehow intends to deprive CFA of their first amendment rights. Didn’t profilers throw a fit over JC Penny’s two dads fathers day ad and those rainbow colored Oreos? Aren’t your people getting mobilized to decimate the ratings of the new show, the ‘New Normal’. Aren’t pro-lifers encouraging their friends to boycott these products to hurt the profitability of these businesses?

    When pro-lifers try to bankrupt Penny’s or Starbucks its okay. But when liberals boycott CFA and try to hurt the profitability of bakers who won’t bake gay wedding cakes, they are anti-business bullies. What gives?


  38. CS - sorry, when did anyone say that boycotting was wrong? As a matter of fact, it's not. I absolutely support the right of anyone to boycott any business they choose for whatever reason they choose!

    What we object to is when Rahm Emmanuel et al try to refuse business licenses to The ACLU objects as well.

    We also object to being referred to as "haters" and "bigots" for expressing our support for traditional marriage. See the comment by Brandon Vogt that Leila posted, above.

    1. Okay, not sure what happened to the second paragraph of my comment.... should be "What we object to is when Rahm Emmanuel et al try to refuse business licenses to business merely because the owner utilized his Constitutional right of free speech to say that he supports traditional marriage. The ACLU objects as well."

  39. CS, I agree with JoAnna. You totally misunderstand. I could not care less if people on the left do not want to eat at Chick-Fil-A, or if they "talk" with their pocketbook. Go for it! No problems here.

    What is disgusting is that the state (the left loves to coerce and punish individuals and businesses with the power of the state) was getting involved. The idea that a mayor could threaten to deny a business license to a company because the owner of that company holds traditional Christian beliefs? Truly beyond the pale.

    And as for the bakery… again, the threat is not simply withholding business, it's the threat of lawsuits, and government penalties. That kind of bullying and intimidation has become the main tactic of the secular left.

    Please CS, tell me you understand the distinction between a boycott and government bullying/intimidation/sanctions against private individuals or businesses.

  40. I forgot to buy the gift certificates! Oh well... it was amazing. My cashier was actually panting, she was working so hard, but still with a huge smile on her face and still asked me how I was doing. SO NICE. You don't get service like that anywhere else. Damn haters, they're so... nice?

  41. Kara, ha ha, I know! These are the nicest haters in the world, apparently! You should have seen MSNBC's coverage. Al Sharpton was talking about "hate" the whole time. Have they lost their minds? Hate? They had a crawler that said that CFA gives millions to groups "designated as hate groups"… meaning the Family Research Council! You know who "designated" them as hate groups? Gay rights groups! So, if a gay rights group says that FRC is a "hate group", then MSNBC has no qualms about repeating that (because they do the bidding of the gay rights groups). So, suddenly, CFA gives millions to "hate groups". Family Research Council is the equivalent of the KKK or Al Queda now!

    And yet, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, who claims that CFA does not have "Chicago values", has no problem receiving Louis Farrakhan! As Ed Morrissey put it:

    So, let’s make sure we have this correct. A business owned by a devout Christian family that does not engage in any kind of discrimination has no place in Emanuel’s “Chicago values,” but Emanuel rolls out the red carpet for perhaps the most well-known anti-Semite in the nation?

    That’s the Chicago way.

    You can't make this stuff up!

    My son tried to get to CFA tonight, but it was still so crowded he couldn't even get in the parking lot. He's going to try again tomorrow.

  42. Forty minutes in the drive-thru (thank heavens I had car snacks for the littles), the place was mobbed and the staff was courteous, friendly and got my order exactly right!

  43. Congrats to your college roomie! That video of her and her hub, but she must have been so excited for her daughter. Go USA! My chicken sandwich was delish, hope yours was too! :)

  44. Leila,

    I do understand the difference and I tend to agree with what you are saying.

    Right now chick-fil-a isn’t practicing any discrimination ( or at least I’m not aware of any) so I don’t really understand the motive behind blocking them from the city limits.

    If and it is a big if, CFA has policies that influenced their treatment of gay folks including hiring practices, I would find that to be a disgrace and all the picketing and such would be well warranted.

    A problem, not entirely relevant here, is that some Christians think its appropriate for business owners not to hire openly gay people or serve them. And that’s going to get ppl into trouble, as it well should.


  45. CS, I'm glad to hear you say that. Can you take a guess at what their motives might be (the motives of those on the left who want to block CFA)?

  46. Welcome back! I missed your wonderful insights. Waited nearly an hour in the drive-thru line at CFA today in, get this, Southern California!! Yes, there are conservatives with traditional values in SoCal. And the newspaper was there to report on the details. Of course, I think they spent as much time photographing and interviewing the ONE protestor who dressed in a black statue of liberty outfit and held up a sign facing the cars in the drive-thru who had already ordered... Not where I would go to protest. I will be very curious to see how the local press reports all of it tomorrow. Another good friend went to CFA for dinner with her Marine Corp vet husband, and one of the "haters" bought their dinner to say thank you for his service. Now if I can just get my friends to get as fired up about the HHS mandate that took effect today, I'd be a happy girl.

  47. Just wanted to say a quick "Hey" and welcome back, Leila! I checked in bright and early yesterday but was on my iPod. Way too hard to type on that thing. The iPod didn't do justice to the bridesmaids' dresses, either. They are even shiner and puffier on a big screen! :)

    I think I've tracked down a working video for anyone who couldn't watch the Raismans: We do not get cable here so I've spent my Olympic days reading the autobiography of my favorite Olympian, Dorothy Hamill. It is amazing what those athletes and their families go through. What a ride, especially now that their every move could potentially go viral. How exciting for them though!

  48. Hi Leila

    I hope you're having a good summer, though I suspect it's very hot where you are. BTW, I completely agree with you about CFA. I think things are out of control when business are not allowed to operate because the owners have professed certain beliefs. As a leftist, I find it a little embarrassing (though I'm thrilled to see so many people speaking publicly about supporting gay marriage).

  49. I was also confused by the labeling of Family Research Council a "certified hate group" without any notion of why or who certified it.

    A little digging and it seems to be about them spending 25 thousand dollars to lobby Congress to NOT condemn a Ugandan law that established death penalties for homosexuals, which if true is a pretty reprehensible way to spend 25 grand.

  50. This comment has been removed by the author.

  51. Were you able to find a source for that claim, Nicholas?


    Obviously not an unbiased view, but this story is a few years old. Also apparently the head of the FRC has gone on record saying he supports criminal penalties for homosexual behavior. This would have been on MSNBC's Hardball 2/2/10 in a discussion on the SCOTUS overturning of Texas' anti-sodomy laws saying he believes it was wrongly decided and supports criminal sanctions.

    While "certified hate group" is pretty strong language that probably isn't justified, they are clearly not a very progressive group, and I can certainly appreciate why many people (gay or not) would find these positions highly objectionable.


    This site is where they document where Tony Perkins says rather unfortunate things about gay people.

    It is pretty clear that the Family Research Council gives people plenty of ammunition to complain about.

    1. I might give my money to an organization because I like the main principles or ideas they stand for...but please do not hold me to everything they ever say because otherwise I can never give my money to anyone.

    2. Agreed. I am just pointing out that the Chick-Fil-A haters can make a case that FRC isn't entirely loveable, but in the end it is a matter of opinion, interpretation, and the balance of what they do.

      The ACLU isn't ALL bad either :-p

  54. I am SO GLAD you are back, Leila! The world needs you!

    I did not go to Chik fil a yesterday. I rarely eat fast food unless I am desperate and the menu was already planned on the calendar. But I DO love Chik fil a's customer service THE BEST out of ANY BUSINESS I have ever gone to. They are ALWAYS friendly and professional, and I drive away smiling and usually call my husband, who works for Burger King, to tell him they really need to steal Chik fil a's business model and copy it. Why are they so successful at making demanding and hard to please customers like myself happy so consistently? Must be from all the hateful owners and their hateful views.

    A former professor of mine posted on FB that the whole thing was stupid because free speech was not being attacked. But when mayors of city's like Chicage and Boston vow to stop businesses from getting licenses because of the owners' personal views, we should all raise an eyebrow and our voice regardless of our own personal views. They are taking away our freedoms little by little and they are doing it by dividing our nation and distracting us from the real issues. And Leila, I love what you posted about Canada. Canada has had gay marriage on the books for a minute and it is now hate speech to say the things Cathy said. Catholic schools have to teach that gay marriage is equal to sacramental marriage. This is an obvious infringement of religious freedom to those of us with our eyes open but it will happen here eventually, little by little...and the people will allow it. We still have our first amendment rights. Let's not give those up, regardless of whether or not we like what someone else has to say.

  55. I see your points Manda... But I also see the other side of the coin... It is difficult to have it both ways, but it seems that for whatever reason, homosexuality seems to be an oversized lightning rod in this arena.

    I mean, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists, and probably a whole lot more religions than I can name, generally get along pretty well in civil society, despite their belief systems being fundamentally opposed in many ways.

    Call it ecumenism, or call it politely ignoring each other in the interests of getting along... I just don't see how explaining to kids that "Yes, gay people exist and are treated the same as everyone else, BUT..." is somehow more onerous than dealing with everything else in society that is contradictory to Catholic faith? "Yes, pornography exists, BUT..." or "Yes, people are allowed by law to get divorced, BUT..."

    Mostly a rhetorical question.

  56. It is just the issue of the day. Catholics are taught that acting out on homosexual tendencies is not the ideal, chaste lifestyle. I lived in sin with my now husband before I married him... the Church does not distinguish between this and 2 men or 2 women doing the same thing, and it's something my priest pressed me on and held me to during confession. The Church has held this view for 2000 years and it's not going to change with the culture, which is why the Church is always viewed by the secular world as being out of date, sexist, hateful, whatever. I don't know how other religions view homosexuality because I haven't studied it. But hate the sin and love the sinner applies to all of us, and I really wish there wasn't so much uproar over homosexuality these days. It really seems to me that many gays (the ones I know, at least) would just like to go about their day and walk their path of struggles just like everyone else but are being exploited by an agenda.

  57. I am not suggesting anything you said is wrong Manda. And the Church should stick by its teachings.

    However, if the FRC is actively lobbying to have homosexual relationships criminalized and the like, that crosses a different line into very negative activism.

    One can teach the Catholic perspective on sexuality without having to make deviation from it illegal.

    But there are (at least) two sides to every story. Here is the FRC's position on the Ugandan Lobbying charge

  58. Nicholas, from the article you posted:

    "Asked of the organization had indeed lobbied to kill the resolution, FRC provided Hotsheet with a statement calling claims that they had lobbied against the resolution inaccurate.

    The Tony Perkins-led FRC said it did lobby on the bill, but not to kill it - rather to change the language it contained and "to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right."

    "FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution," the group said. "FRC's efforts, at the request of Congressional offices, were limited to seeking changes in the language of proposed drafts of the resolution, in order to make it more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill."

    "FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality - nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct," the group adds."

    So, I just don't see what you're saying above as being accurate with the article you posted. They did not try to have homosexual relationships criminalized. Maybe I am confused. Anyone?

  59. I doubt the FRC is spending time and money lobbying for unmarried heterosexual relations to be criminalized though :-p

  60. But Nicholas, The FRC said they were not lobbying for homosexual relationships to be criminalized. Did you read the article you posted? Their own statement said they only wanted the language in the bill changed because it had statements like, "homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right." The FRC might believe that it is uncharitable to allow such language to remain because the bible says that homosexual conduct is the result of ungodliness. "FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality - nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct," the group adds."

  61. Manda, I said there are two sides to every story. That is the side that is favorable to the FRC :-p

    The first link I provided pointed out the FRC was lobbying against Congress condemning the Uganda bill without additional context. This link provides the FRC's context. This is regarding the Uganda bill charge being levied by Liberal groups.

    I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak, I am just looking for the most accurate information.

    However, the stuff about criminalizing homosexual relations is a different charge, in my post where I mentioned that I pointed out the source - MSNBC Hardball interview 2/2/10 with a quote, but I didn't have a link to it. Separate thing from the Uganda one. This appears to be the interview they are complaining about

    I am basically just trying to fact check the complaints being levied against the FRC, which appear to me to the bulk of the liberal complaint with Chick-Fil-A. The group which called the FRC a hate group is the Southern Law Poverty Center (

  62. My conclusion by the way, is that members of the FRC tend to say some not so nice, or even extreme things in interviews. They are clearly opposed to further "normalization" of homosexuality in the culture.

    That being said, I suspect the liberal definition of "hate group" is more liberal (pardon the pun) than my own, but I think the FRC says a lot of things I would say are false or misleading (conflating homosexuality and pedophilia for example.)

    I think this whole Chick-Fil-A thing is overhyped and overblown, and is a typical example of Internet Slacktivism that will die down soon enough.

  63. You made me watch Chris Matthews??? ;) Well, the video froze 3 minutes in but I heard him say he doesn't think don't ask don't tell should be repealed because it could make people uncomfortable and cause other issues. Are those not his opinions, and are those the sort of statements that make him hateful, or was there something outright hateful that he said that was? Again, while you are digging into this issue to see whether the FRC is in fact a hate group as LIBERALS with an agenda are labeling them, should Cathy have done all of this research before donating to/supporting them? I have gotten a simple pamphlet in the mail and sent money to places like St. Judes. If it comes out that St. Judes is actually aborting babies I don't want to be called a baby killer because all I knew about St. Judes was that they cure kids of cancer.

  64. For the record, the Catholic Church has spoken out against anti-gay laws in Uganda: (Not that anyone made that claim -- just saying.)

    Southern Law Poverty Center - sigh. An example of a group with good intentions but bad execution. They have a very, very, very overbroad definition of what constitutes "hate." They'll also take a single statement by one person within an organization and declare that the entire organization is hateful as a result.

    Well, I'm glad we've established that the FRC doesn't support stoning homosexuals, despite media insistence to the contrary.

  65. The Southern Poverty Law Center is the group that officially designated FRC as a "hate group." And I think the term is MORE than well-earned. There is much much more to it than the Uganda bill. Here is the SPLC's profile of the FRC:

    The Southern Poverty Law Center is a venerable institution that has been around for decades, mostly focused on racism in the south.

  66. The quote is the very last minute of that interview :-p Sprigg says homosexuality should be criminalized.

    I am not advocating any position here. In this thread Miss G. posted the link to the Huffington Post piece that essentially says "It isn't about gay marriage, it is about all these other horrible things that the FRC does that Chick-Fil-A supports!"

    So I decided to see if they were true or not. My first pass of Google-Fu came up with all the liberal complaints, which make these people sound pretty bad. A second pass of Google-Fu to stir up some opposing viewpoints.

    I figure it is germane to discuss FRC because that is really what the Anti-Chick-Fil-A crowd is on about. It obviously is not about the chicken :-)

    I am not labeling anyone a hate group. But the liberal side is calling the FRC a hate group so I just wanted to see if it was legit or not.

    I provided links to the source material so you could follow along on my journey if you desired, but I am not directly debating you.

  67. "They'll also take a single statement by one person within an organization and declare that the entire organization is hateful as a result."

    JoAnna--that is COMPLETELY untrue. Refer to the link above. The designation of FRC as a hate group, is based on dozens of verifiable actions/statements by its leaders.

  68. Good point, Manda.

    So, let me get the liberal logic straight here...

    When Susan G. Komen withdrew support from PP because they (SGK) didn't want to be affiliated with a group whose main business is killing unborn children (not fighting breast cancer), liberals howled to high heaven and bullied SGK into backing down, insisting that SGK had an obligation to support PP because they (PP) occasionally referred out for a mammogram in between abortions.

    But when Dan Cathy gives money to an organization that was founded to support traditional marriage and the family, and whose members sometimes say stupid things to the media, he is castigated for not immediately withdrawing all support and condemning the organization.

    Oh yeah. That makes sense.

  69. Again, read the information about the FRC and WHY it was designated as a hate group. It is infinitely graver than sometimes saying "stupid things to the media." And yes, castigating him makes complete sense, although, in my opinion, preventing him from running a business does not.

  70. The problem is, Johanne, that the SPLC has a very different definition of the word "hate" that most normal, rational people do.

    I read the page you linked and I don't see any hatred of homosexuals. I see insistence by the FRC that homosexual BEHAVIOR is wrong, but no hatred of homosexuals as people.

    Also, they claim that the FRC uses "junk science," which is their term for, "Science with which we disagree." That doesn't mean it's "junk."

  71. Honestly? Did you read the entire article. The things the FRC says about homosexuality are preposterous and entirely hateful. It is too convenient to keep saying they only object to homosexual's behavior.


    “One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets' of a new sexual order.”
    -1999 FRC pamphlet, Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex with Boys.

    That statement is, first of all, a lie. And definitely a hateful one. And yes, it's "junk."

  72. Wow, this is all very interesting. Waaaaay too much for me to wade through in all those links and accusations and respond to. I will say just a few basic things. First, it all seems like a battle of the "studies", and I have no time to read all the studies and see what was or was not valid or taken out of context. SPLC, well, they started out with good intentions, but some feel that they are themselves propagating hate against groups (including Christians):

    I am pretty darn sure that if they could, they would label the Catholic Church as a hate group, as opposing gay marriage laws or saying that homosexuality is a sin seems to be the criteria for who "hates".

    The whole "you're a hater!" thing is getting to be a big "yawn". We are in deep trouble if this is where we are. Manda, for those who didn't see the link to the Canada consequences, here it is:“canada-has-recognized-gay-marriage-for-many-years-what-has-occurred-there/

    These are just facts. How does this not chill a person?

    Nicholas, just a small correction (but significant, for clarity's sake). No one was working hard, trying to "make" sodomy illegal… it already was illegal. Just like adultery used to be, correct? So, nothing proactive was going on. Not everything that is immoral should be illegal, for sure. But don't make it look as if there were Christian people storming on the scene trying to change the laws. All that was happening from the left, not from Christians. Same with gay marriage: The narrative is being painted as Christians aggressively trying to "take away" marriage rights from gays. But they never in the history of the nation have even had them! (And no one thought this controversial, on either side!) So, all the movement, all the activism is coming from one side.

    The big fear is that sexual "rights" have now trumped freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Which is more foundational? As soon as homosexual acts become a civil right (beyond just being left alone to do those acts, or live with a same sex partner, which homosexuals are able to do), the Church becomes a violator of human rights, and runs afoul of the laws of the land, simply by being the Church. We become criminals, we lose our rights and our jobs and our good name ("hate" is illegal in America), simply for being Catholic. We are fined and ultimately jailed, simply for being Catholic.

    Hey, if that's what happens, so be it. Martyrdom has never scared the saints. But if I had my preference, America would stay free. It has been such a nice experiment since 1776.

  73. The problem is, Johanne, that the SPLC has a very different definition of the word "hate" that most normal, rational people do.


    Johanne, hi! Maybe the statement you reference is a lie, as you say. I don't know. But, International Planned Parenthood is pushing to lower the age of consent laws and push for children's sexual "rights" Am I allowed to say that or is that pure hate to point out what IPPF has said, and even link to their full pamphlet? I am glad you think that pushing for lowered age of consent is horrifying, and will you condemn IPPF with me?

    Reference #3 in this post:

  74. Leila - Agreed. I was just responding to the charge. The HuffPo piece uses the quote from Sprigg in that Hardball interview that decriminalizing sodomy was wrong, and criminal penalties should be re-instituted as part of their "This is the real issue with chick-Fil-A, NOT what Dan Cathy said" argument. That appears to be accurate - Sprigg does say that as his personal opinion. There is however no evidence to say that the FRC has an organized effort to make Sprigg's opinion law.

    Basically I believe you and I agree that the furor over Cathy's statements and the "OMG Chick-Fil-A is promoting hate!" response is pretty much nonsense.

    As far as the "homosexuality as a civil right" thing goes, I tend to think that is overblown. But if we are to assume consensual adults having sex in the privacy of their home is generally at least implied as a protected freedom, there really isn't any reason to delve deeper than that. I do not see society on the cusp of saying pre- or extra-marital sex should be criminalized again.

    I see this as kind of analogous to the failed Equal Rights Amendment. Women are equal to men. Existing legislation and Constitutional Amendments cover that. Some people felt there was enough sexism and discrimination in society that they wanted a new Constitutional Amendment to spell that out specifically. It failed, which is neither here nor there because women already have equal rights.

    It appears to me the same argument is being implied to homosexuality. They feel there is overt discrimination, and thus they advocate for more explicit blanket protections which will essentially overlap existing ones.

    However, I am less pessimistic than you on your dystopian prediction. The Church would only be a violator of human rights (at least by my common sense standard) in your scenario if for some reason people were required to join the Church, or if the Church were granted some legal enforcement power (or perhaps opened a prison in Vatican City :-p). Yet clearly there are plenty of homosexuals in active relationships that still claim to be Catholic, at best the Church can do what? Get into a "I'm Catholic - "No you're not" argument with them.

  75. As far as the "homosexuality as a civil right" thing goes, I tend to think that is overblown.

    Nicholas, why do you think it's overblown?

    Did you watch this video, to see what has already happened in Canada, in a very short amount of time?“canada-has-recognized-gay-marriage-for-many-years-what-has-occurred-there/

    Why should this not be troubling to Catholics, and why should we not assume it won't happen here?
    Remember, if I deny someone a civil "right", then I am discriminatory. There are gov't sanctions for that.

    By the way, with regard to this:

    I mean, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists, and probably a whole lot more religions than I can name, generally get along pretty well in civil society, despite their belief systems being fundamentally opposed in many ways.

    On the issue of homosexuality being sinful, the orthodox of all major world religions have been of one voice. Not fundamentally opposed, not in disagreement. And the concept of homosexual marriage for the orthodox of every major world religion? An oxymoron. Like a square circle, it cannot exist. In fact, the whole issue of gay marriage was non-controversial till about two seconds ago in human history.

  76. Actually when I said "overblown" I also mostly meant as far as any need for it to be singled out as a civil right, hence my comparison to ERA.

    I watched the video, I can see your POV and I am not suggesting there is no problem -- but I don't see Catholic Martyr's dying in the streets of Canada is all.

    As for my quote on religions, yes they all are opposed to homosexual marriage, but they are also in total opposition on far more fundamental issues, like the nature of God, Jesus, etc. and get along just fine generally in day to day civil society.

    My observation was more along the lines of WHY does homosexuality seem so dis-proportionally polarizing? Not trying to answer any of the questions raised in this discussion.

  77. I think it's polarizing because it truly is the pivot point for the culture wars. Sexual and abortion rights really are sacraments for the left. Of course, from a Catholic perspective, I would say that it's not surprise, since as the family goes, so goes the nation/world. We know that this is a huge spiritual battle for the family, and if the devil can destroy the family, he can destroy souls.

    Religions being opposed on matters of doctrine are much different than being opposed on matters of morals and behaviors. My belief in the Trinity or a Hindus belief in many gods does not devalue the family unit or dilute marriage as the first cell and foundation of society. Imagine if one religion said that killing is good, and another said killing was evil: Yes, you'd have a big problem in that society!

    Anyway, just read this, about the hate spewed by the "mainstream" media, who are nothing other than gay rights activists, really:

    1. *Anyway, I just read this…

      (I wasn't trying to command you to read it! Gosh, I need to proofread before I hit publish.)

    2. That's OK, I am actually quite accepting of you as an authority figure. I am certainly a natural born arguer, I'll debate on anything :-p.

      But I really feel more comfortable agreeing with you. I may have to chalk it up to a side effect of grace.

  78. "The problem is, Johanne, that the SPLC has a very different definition of the word "hate" that most normal, rational people do."

    Oh look, it's this tired argument again: language never changes! Liberals attempt to re-write the dictionary!

    Tell us JoAnna, is the KKK just a peaceful group of people who choose to wear white and work hard to promote the advancement of people with less melanin?

  79. One might argue on the flip side that the FRC is trying to re-define "research" in a manner that no self-respecting, normal, ethical, logical researcher would ever agree with : )

  80. Miss G, are you kidding me? You think the KKK and the FRC are the "same"? Please, are you serious? Go on the record and say it explicitly.

  81. I never said KKK=FRC (that's in your dictionary maybe?)

    JoAnna claims that statements made by senior fellows of the FRC that homosexual behavior should be criminalized and that gay people should be exported from the country is not hateful.

    Apparently I've had it wrong all along! When the KKK makes racist comments, they're really just advocating for white people and when pedophiles abuse children, they're really just using tactile forms of expression to communicate. Silly me....

  82. Gwen, You weren't trying to draw a parallel between KKK and FRC as an organization? What were you trying to do? Because the KKK actually is a hate group, so what's the connection you were making?

    SPLC puts both the KKK and the FRC in the "hate group" category, as if they were the same! They also put the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in the "hate group" category. I get emails from NOM and support their mission. According to SPLC, I am supporting a hate group. Do you agree, Gwen? Am I a hater? Is NOM a "hate group"?

    This is so interesting. And disturbing.

    I mean, who here has ever said that the KKK or pedophilia groups are good organizations? Your last paragraph makes it look like we have aruged that! Clarify?

  83. Maybe this will be a better question:

    How are the KKK and the FRC different, in your opinion, Gwen?

  84. The problem is the polarization. There is hate speech and non-hate speech and apparently no gray areas or middle ground in today's lexicon.

    The problem with that scenario is that the world is not black and white, and generally we consider hate speech to be non-protected.

    So if the scenario is you hold a dissenting opinion it is automatically hate speech, that is a problem.

  85. Back up that horse, Gwen. Please prove your assertion that the FRC supports "exporting" homosexuals from the USA, and is sponsoring or otherwise encouraging legislation to that end. You've yet to do so. Evidence, please.

    Also, please provide evidence of the following:

    The FRC, as an organization, saying that gay people should be shot.

    The FRC, as an organization, saying that gay people should be lynched.

    The FRC, as an organization, saying that gay people are subhuman and should be subjugated into chattel slavery.

    If you can provide evidence of any of the above, then your comparison between the KKK and the FRC might possibly have merit.

    Go on, I'm waiting.

    In the meantime, we sane, rational people know the difference between being against a BEHAVIOR (homosexual acts) and loving those who happen to have same-sex attraction.

    I support abolishing no-fault divorce. Does that mean I hate divorced people and want to see them shot in the streets?

  86. Yes, the video of people taunting Chick-Fil-A workers and trying to denigrate them as human beings for merely being employed at a fast food restaurant is appalling and deeply disturbing. Nasty, unnecessary, and uncalled for.

    You can disagree with the FRC and believe that some of the things they say are wrong and possibly even hurtful... but the leap to "hate speech" and what that implies -- at least in my opinion -- is what gives license to these people to just assume they are evil and therefore that they are not deserving of basic respect.

    I am forced to laugh as that rude, vicious person can sit there and taunt a fast food worker, then take the time to point out that he is not gay, but he "just can't stand the hate" as he dishes out a heaping plate of hatred to that poor girl.

    A job is a job, but I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that people wouldn't choose to work at a fast food restaurant if they had a better option. Hell, I make a decent wage (I assume considerably more than a fast food worker) and I wouldn't want to work at a fast food place even for the same salary I make now! I wouldn't want to have to deal with that crap.

    And that is the kind of crap that will cost that side of the debate any kind of sympathy they might get from the middle ground people. Shameful.

  87. Nicholas, many of us have long observed that tolerance is not actually a value of the left. Only complete acceptace, compliance and affirmation will do. If not, you are a hater. It really is as simple as that. Why do those invested in the issue of gay "rights" need to be so absolutely affirmed? I think it's because of natural law and the conscience. One of the most important things I have ever learned I summarized in this post:

    Seriously, the second part of that post, where he describes what happens with the avenging conscience, is playing out -- no, raging -- right now. It will get scary. It already is scary.

    If I had to leave this blog abandoned with only five posts on it, that post would make the top five. I think it's that important.

  88. JoAnna - It appears that people associated with the FRC have been quoted as making statements like the ones you mentioned. While there is no evidence that the FRC is specifically advancing those as an agenda, I think it is a fair assumption that the personal opinions of people who speak for FRC will have an impact on its policies.

    However, that being said, we are indeed far too quick to label opposing positions as hate speech.

    There is, in my estimation, a sort of sacred cow mentality on the left, where if you are opposed to expanding civil rights definitions, that means you are automatically an oppressor and quite possibly evil.

    However, it is probably also true that the most vocal people on both sides of the issue are going to be the most radical. It is also the case that media thrives on conflict and sensationalism, so it will also be the case that people on both sides who advocate the most sensational positions will be the ones that get the most press, and therefore a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

  89. The only group I'm aware of that supports gay people being shot, lynched, and subjugated into chattel slavery are the Westboro Baptist Church. I didn't see any evidence of even individuals within the FRC calling for the death of gay people. Did one of your links include that, Nicholas?

  90. Something to keep in mind when bringing up old quotes from folks: About 10-15 years ago, most Americans saw homosexual acts as deviant and wrong. This sea change to embracing it as worthy of even marriage is VERY recent (and is a grand social experiment). You may well find folks espousing things in 1999 that they would not espouse today. It is a very different world in America now. You should not judge them so harshly.

    For example, there are people today in America who would say, "I wish pedophiles would not be imported to our nation", because at this point in time, we find what they do unhealthy and immoral. In twenty years, if some sexual "rights" groups have their way, we might have a change of heart. See how it works? It's a dangerous game that is being played by the left. They are "progressive", but soon others will out-progress them. That's my next blog post (well, after Quick Takes, if I do one), so stay tuned.

  91. JoAnna, why don't you provide the definition of "hate" since apparently so many liberals are in the dark as to what the "normal" and "logical" meaning of the word could be.

    And more specifically, exactly how does speech supported by the FRC from the mouth of Peter Sprigg “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States, because we believe that homosexuality is destructive to society” and "I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior” contribute to a peaceful, inclusive, country?

    And just so we're clear, the definition of a "comparison" is "a consideration or estimate of the similarities or dissimilarities between two things or people." Therefore, it's irrelevant to search for the words "lynch," "shot" and "slavery" in FRC literature. There is a comparison to be made-the KKK advocated for violence and criminalization towards non-Anglo people; likewise the FRC advocates for criminalization of homosexuals.

    "advocate" to support something publicly

  92. Miss G, could you please just answer a direct question?

  93. Here's a reprint of my comment, with some questions: Gwen, You weren't trying to draw a parallel between KKK and FRC as an organization? What were you trying to do? Because the KKK actually is a hate group, so what's the connection you were making?

    SPLC puts both the KKK and the FRC in the "hate group" category, as if they were the same! They also put the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in the "hate group" category. I get emails from NOM and support their mission. According to SPLC, I am supporting a hate group. Do you agree, Gwen? Am I a hater? Is NOM a "hate group"?

    This is so interesting. And disturbing.

    I mean, who here has ever said that the KKK or pedophilia groups are good organizations? Your last paragraph makes it look like we have aruged that! Clarify?

  94. Gwen, you've yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that the FRC, or anyone affiliated with them, wants gay people exported out of the U.S. Either provide evidence to support your assertion, or stop spreading lies.

    In a Catholic context, the definition of hate is to wish evil upon someone. That sure sounds like what the KKK does -- but not what the FRC is doing. Saying "marriage cannot be redefined" and "we stand for the traditional family" is not wishing evil upon anyone.

  95. Such a great statement from Antione! Openly gay, but he happily went to CFA yesterday to support them against the bullies. I love Antoine! Always have, since his first video. (But wait, I'm a hater, so how can it be that I love him?)

    Viral video sensation Antoine Dodson isn't hiding his opinions on the current Chick-fil-A controversy, and you can run and tell that.

    Dodson, an openly gay, Huntsville, Ala., resident who shot to Internet fame when he mocked a would-be rapist who broke into his home, was among those lining up at his neighborhood Chick-fil-A Wednesday, according to the Huntsville Times. Dodson came for lunch on what Fox News personality Mike Huckabee dubbed “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.” The nationwide event was in support of company president Dan Cathy, who had been under fire for saying he supports the "biblical definition" of marriage.

    "That's what freedom is. We don't all have to believe in the same things," Dodson told the newspaper, after ordering a lunch of a spicy chicken sandwich and waffle fries. "We all have our different beliefs and can still come together and still be friends and be cool with each other."

    Read more:

  96. Antoine is the man. I cannot believe you have 104 comments. People have been DYING to talk to you:) I am so incredibly happy that Andrew's jail time is almost over. I dont have an iPad on my at the moment, but would be happy to coordinate an auction if they are open to it.

  97. Brenda, ha ha, probably half the comments are mine!! :)

    And, that is an answer to a prayers! I would LOVE to take you up on the auction offer!!! Let's talk!! WOW!

    Also, thanks to everyone who has been ordering their Amazon from this blog link (at the bottom). I have been able to earn about $100 in a months, all going to the orphans! Every penny! Thank you!! Please keep it up!

  98. @JoAna To be fair, the people in the hieracrhy of FRC, at least as personal opinions, have given statements, on camera, to the public, that they favor re-criminalization of homosexuality.

    It is not accurate to state that Gwen has provided "no evidence." The question is what does the evidence mean? I mean, multiple direct statements have to count as some kind of evidence.

    To me, it seems fair to say the FRC not only wants to oppose gay marriage, but they also want to see homosexual behavior marginalized and removed from the public square -- at least as personal opinion. Whether they actively lobby for those as legislative goals remains to be shown either way.

    It appears to me, unless I am mistaken, that the opinions of FRC spokespersons go further than most people who contribute here.

    Statements made by Spring and Perkins state:

    They favored the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell in the Military, but NOT so that gays may openly serve, but rather to close the loophole and completely bar all gay people from any kind of military service and any that attempt it are caught be subject to military criminal penalties.

    They believe the overturning of anti-sodomy laws in Texas were wrongly decided and favor a return of criminal penalties for homosexual acts.

    They have used "colorful" langauage with religious connotations that certainly gay people would find insulting (they are pawns of the devil, responsible for pedophiles, etc.)

    Those positions are a far cry from simply wishing to defend the traditional family, and go far beyond that goal.

    I have no personal issues with Chick-Fil-A, but I wouldn't personally support FRC because they are taking it too far.

    This is not say that the left doesn't have its share of of mean spiritied people who are completely overreacting as well, such as the man who was so proud of himself for tormenting a fast food employee as if she were somehow personally culpable for evils in the world as a result of serving chicken to drive thru customers.

  99. Nicholas, but do you think it's accurate for the left (and their lapdog media) to declare and report that FRC is a "known hate group"?

  100. Nicholas, please explain to me how "wanting to recriminalize sodomy" equates to "wanting all homosexuals exported out of the country." They seem to me to be two different things. One is opposition to the behavior, one is unjust discrimination against the person. I don't see it.

  101. Leila - I said several times in this thread already that I believe the hate group charge is inaccurate and overkill. That being said, I do not agree with many of their positions.

    JoAnna - No one suggested those two are equal, so it is a pointless question. However, if your "opposition to the behavior" is to have people locked in jail than that IMHO does in fact reach the level of "unjust discrimination."

    Are they also advocating criminalizing heterosexual activity between unmarried people? I have found nothing to suggest that they are.

    You can make a good argument for keeping marriage to between a man and a woman. I see no argument for criminally prosecuting gay people for adult, consensual sex in the privacy of their own homes that would not be unjust discrimination IF they succeeded in achieveing that position.

    I am not sure why we cannot agree that there are shades of gray and nuanced positions. Is FRC a hate group? No. Have the spokespeople for the FRC said some things that are at the very least hurtful to gay people? Yes.

    Saying you do not believe in gay marriage because that violates the definition of marriage? Sure. Saying gay people should go to jail for having sex? Not as pure an argument.

  102. Nicholas, forgive me for not always remembering who says what. The brain is old and limited, ha ha.

    Actually, I think it's the Catholics here who have said that there are shades of gray and nuanced positions (and statements of FRC folks that we don't agree with). You might want to ask why the other side cannot see those nuances.

    Also, I don't think anyone in the world could find an organization with leaders who haven't said things that we find out of line or that we can point to as imprudent or dumb. I am pretty sure the leaders at SPLC have incredible animosity towards orthodox Christians, for example, and they spout their own brand of ugly intolerance as I see it. And the things I have heard out of the mouth and pen of, say, Obama's folks (have you read anything about the "safe schools czar"?) should put them in a category far beyond the pale of what FRC folks have said in past years. In fact, the "safe schools czar" should not even be allowed around children with his history. But no one, and not the left, has called for resignation of any of these extreme folks, or labelled them as "haters".

    You are in the middle ground seeing nuances, and that's good. You have not labelled FRC a "hate group". That is good. But we have three commenters on MSNBC (supposedly a respectable national news outfit) putting that accusation, explicitly, on the crawler, at the same time they are pronouncing FRC an actual "hate group" with their mouths, repeatedly, withno opposition. This is standard for the "mainstream" left. Again, forgive my brain, but I believe it's the view that Gwen, a college professor teaching our children, holds as well (that the FRC is a hate group). Haters, haters, haters, like the KKK (although somehow different ?? but she hasn't clarified).

    Is National Organization for Marriage a hate group? SPLC says "yes". I support NOM. Am I part of a hate group? I'm sorry, but I think the left has gone haywire. Do you think that the avenging conscience (I linked to info on that) has anything to do with why they have come out with such extreme rhetoric and red hot rage, demanding total and unequivocal compliance with and acceptance of gay marriage? Does it alarm you even a little that the penalties and punishments attached to non-compliance are getting harsher, and the calls for government action is getting stronger? I find it frightening. I keep wondering what the heck happened to this country, even in the past two years or so? It's seriously bizarre.

    By the way, you say you cannot see anyone advocating for the illegality of illicit heterosexual sex. But really, I am sure that these same folks at FRC that we are talking about would have lobbied against the decriminalization of adultery. Don't you think?

  103. Here's what I'm not getting, Nicholas.

    You said: "To be fair, the people in the hieracrhy of FRC, at least as personal opinions, have given statements, on camera, to the public, that they favor re-criminalization of homosexuality."

    I agree that they have said that. I disagree with them that re-criminalization of homosexuality would be a good thing.

    But Gwen claims that the organization lobbies to have every homosexual exported from the USA. I'm asking for proof of that specific accusation.

    Also, regarding people advocating for illegality of illicit heterosexual sex - I'm pretty sure the FRC would support banning no-fault divorce and re-criminalizing adultery.

  104. "By the way, you say you cannot see anyone advocating for the illegality of illicit heterosexual sex. But really, I am sure that these same folks at FRC that we are talking about would have lobbied against the decriminalization of adultery. Don't you think?"

    It is certainly quite possible, hence I did hedge my statements with saying I haven't seen it, not that they definitely are not. Looking at their website they do seem to advocate reforming divorce laws so as to try and reduce the incidence of no-fault divorces, so there is that.

    I was just struck by JoAnna's position that criminalization of gay sex is merely "opposition to the behavior" as opposed to discrimination. I mean, several people on this thread have given a virtual high-five to Antoine Dodson for his statements, I'd at least hope that would be accompanied by letting him live his life both marriage free and jail free.

    In the end though, the FRC is what it is, and it has a valid POV and a right to express that POV. It is not a hate group. I can't say I agree with 100% of its views.

  105. OK, I misunderstood you, I apologize JoAnna.

  106. I don't know anyone who wants homosexuals to be jailed for their activities. Nor adulterers, by the way. But they don't want sin celebrated as a civil right, either, with the repercussion that the ones opposing homosexuality or adultery are the ones who get fined or go to jail.

    Nicholas, what alarms me in all this is that the ones who are calling traditional Catholics and Christian groups "haters" are not some tiny little crazy fringe group, but they are the policy makers (with the complicity of the media). They are the ones with the power to fine and jail folks. They are the ones who can punish, and not just with words. They have real control over us. And they are in solidarity with people like the SPLC, the most radical of the gay rights activists, etc., who think that even politely declining to bake a cake for a gay "wedding" is a hate crime, punishable by legal action and the ruination of a man's livelihood.

    That's the problem we are running into now, and the bullying and threats are not getting better, they are getting worse, and more intense -- again, by those who have real power.

    Once society moved to tolerance of homosexuality, the response from the left was not "live and let live" as it should have been, it was to ratchet up the volume and become more punitive and threatening to those who disagree, to the point of governmental and legal intimidation.

    Do you see a disturbing trend there at all, Nicholas? Are there any red flags you see?

    That is why the show of support for CFA was so important. It was a shot in the arm for those who needed to feel less alone in this struggle, and who up until now may have been intimidated by the bullies on the left, who do have the power to ruin people with the power of the government.

    1. I agree with everything except the cake guy. He's a baker not a priest, and cakes have no religious significance. Not selling a cake to gay people is just plain rude and unnecessary.


    And so it begins? Hate graffiti by the left, on a Chick-Fil-A in California. Disgusting.

  108. TOTAL non sequitur:

    Little Tatiana is an orphan in Easter Europe who has HIV, and who has found a family indirectly through this blog (praise GOD!). There is a Gymboree auction on facebook that ends today, to help her family raise the last bit of money to get her. The adorable outfits (boys and girls, all sizes) are brand new with tags and are going for next to nothing at the moment. They are worth a look! Check it out:

    Auction ends tonight!!!

  109. Actually, Nicholas, he said he would sell cakes to gay people and he has. What he will not do is bake a cake for a gay wedding.

    Should he be also required to bake cakes for things he finds a violation of his conscience? What if he were asked to bake a cake celebrating the opening of a strip club? Must he be required by law to bake that cake? I'm seriously asking.

    Why is his conscience not considered?

    What about photographers? Must they photograph gay weddings? If so, then what about photographing parties for swingers? Or promotional materials for an abortion clinic?

    Do business owners have no rights of conscience anymore? (I get that the left does not think they do, but I'm asking you, Nicholas.)

  110. And actually, the right not to be coerced by government to help in the celebration of sin is definitely a religious consideration.

    Are you a "freedom of worship" guy, as opposed to believing in freedom of religion (which means you can take your beliefs and live them outside the walls of a church building)?

  111. Rights of conscience are generally (IMO) held to a fairly strict standard. If you don't like Yankees fans, that isn't generally enough to warrant it, for example.

    I am very, very hesitant to say that Freedom of Religion means you can opt out of ANYTHING because you don't agree with it or like it. Because that becomes way too open to potential misuse, which would cause a swing in the other direction.

    You do raise some interesting examples though. If you have a bakery with cakes for sale, and someone is like "Hey I'm buying your cakes for a strip club" I am actually not sure... I don't think it would be legal to refuse to sell to them, but I honestly don't know.

    I believe in freedom of religion, but I don't see anything in Catholicism that says don't sell products to sinners. Because 100% of human beings are sinners, so who else can you sell to?

    Obviously there are practical limits to freedom of religion. Mormons and Polygamy jump to mind. Peyote and Native Americans (which I believe they passed special legislation to resolve, etc.)

    Now, I have only read a very little bit about the cake guy, and saw one interview. I do not have enough to go on to judge his motivations. Maybe he is super devout, maybe he isn't. I would be interested to know for example, if someone had come to him and said "Hey I really like your cake artistry, and I would like to buy a cake. I am not going to use it in a real wedding, but rather for a fake wedding on a TV show with fictional characters" -- if his answer was "No thanks, I bake all of my cakes exclusively for actual, religious, sacramental weddings and wouldn't feel right baking one for entertainment purposes only" then I would probably be more sympathetic to his cause.

    Or even if he refused to bake cakes for Second Marriages after divorce.

    But I am going out on a limb that he is judging this particular sin more harshly than all the other sins of his customers.

    There are religious groups in this country that practice their religion without interference. Groups like the Amish and others that segregate themselves in order to make sure they can live their lives according to their beliefs.

    If you are going to be in the larger secular society, then there has to be some give and take where rights and beliefs clash.

  112. Thought experiment, Nicholas:

    What if an atheist baker was asked to make a cake for a Catholic baptism? Does he have the right to refuse because he sincerely believes that infant baptism is a reprehensible act of indoctrination on an innocent child?

    What if a devout Catholic was asked to make a cake for two (heterosexual) divorced former members of his parish who are getting married civilly (i.e., in a marriage ceremony the Church considers invalid)? Does he have the right to refuse?

    What about the baker who refused to decorate a birthday cake for 3-year-old Adolf Hitler? Should that baker have been forced by the government to make the cake?

  113. I believe in freedom of religion, but I don't see anything in Catholicism that says don't sell products to sinners. Because 100% of human beings are sinners, so who else can you sell to?

    Selling products to sinners is one thing, but being forced to make or sell products in order to celebrate or facilitate sin is another matter altogether. Surely you can see the distinction?

    Nicholas, I think this seems trickier than it is.

    The gay couple could have come in and bought a cake for their "wedding" that was sitting on his shelf. I am sure he would not have cared what they were buying it for, nor would it necessarily be stated. But when a gay couple comes in and asks for a cake to be designed by this baker, explicitly for a celebration of something that the baker considers to be immoral (not just that the people are "sinners" as we all are), then of course he should be able to politely decline. As for the gay customer, any reasonable person would simply go to the next bakery. There are plenty of bakeries.

    The gov't doesn't define which of my religious beliefs are allowable, as that defeats the purpose of freedom of religion, no? I don't need approval from the gov't to follow my conscience, do I? No one has a "right" for me to bake them a cake. I am not depriving them of a civil right by politely declining to help them celebrate something that I believe to be mortally sinful.

    (And frankly, even polygamists can all live together in a house, and do as they will; they just don't get a piece of paper that says they are married.)

    The issue is not "I will only bake cakes for sacramental marriages and nothing else", it's "I will not knowingly help to celebrate something I consider a grave sin."

    Baking a fake cake for a fictional wedding would not be sinful. How could it be? It's not the same issue at all.

    If he didn't want to bake a cake for a Catholic whose first marriage is not annulled, I would be okay with him declining that as well.

    My gosh, this is still America, isn't it? Why shouldn't he be able to decline?

    My husband does consulting, and he has his own business. If an abortion clinic wanted my husband to be a consultant for them, I certainly hope that he could decline. If he couldn't decline, legally, then he would be forced to lose his business, and another family would be in poverty.

    I think the left wouldn't care about him losing his business, but I hope most people would care. I hope that I can still be openly Catholic for a few more years in this country. Not so sure my kids will be able to. It's going to be very rough for my children and grandchildren the way things are going.

    And the way so many good folks in the middle are just yawning and shrugging.

    Question (and yes, I know this is all disjointed… still summer with lots of kids in and out):

    If a Catholic photographer was approached to do a photo shoot for a porn company, could he legally decline? Should he be able to?

    If no, then where are his rights? And does being Catholic mean anything at all?

  114. I see your point. But you are using examples of actually /participating/ - being present, being part of the proceedings (Photographer, Consultant) and Baker, who is not participating.

    However, I certainly see your point, and frankly I do not have the legal background to know which way it falls.

    Argh. OK, I must yield. You are correct. I apologize to the baker :-p

  115. Perhaps I'm wrong, but aren't individual businesses (not run with government money) free to do business or not do business with whomever they wish? I have been in so many restaurants with signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," or "no shoes, no service," or whatever.

  116. Welcome back welcome back welcome back! Now I have that theme song stuck in my head. I have never been to Chik Fil A but the waffle fries sound good and I could go for a milkshake. I wonder if ours is as crowded?

    Also how cool is it that you know the nervous mom? And Aly Raisman went on to compete in the all around which was a huge dream for her. The Raismans seem like great supportive parents!

  117. Welcome back! The blogosphere wasn't the same without you! So sorry about the loss of your dear friend. Prayers for the repose of her soul--but when you can, I'd love to hear more about this amazing woman.

  118. Johanne, I think that is true to an extent, but become less and less true due to new laws and calculated, strategic lawsuits. The problem is that "sexual orientation" is part of anti-discrimination laws now (how that does not apply to all sexual orientations -- there are many -- is a question unto itself). And where I can see that one should not deny service to people based on an orientation, the problem is now that certain things are being considered "civil rights". Such as, the right of gays to "marry" or the right of gays to adopt children, etc. And when a company or organization balks at facilitating or helping in something that they consider sinful, the "right" of the homosexual to be accommodated trumps the owners freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.

    I have no idea why the government cannot distinguish between serving a person (a business can serve a homosexual just like they serve anyone else) and accommodating an objectionable behavior (like taking a photographer being forced to take photos at a strip club, or a baker being forced to bake a cake for a gay "wedding" celebration).

    But we Catholics have seen so many of our religious liberties eroding lately, it's actually quite jarring. We expect it to continue though, as the nation becomes more devoutly secular, esp. the ones who shape policy. If Obama gets four more years, with no fears of reelection, we are going to see him really get serious about restricting our freedoms. He's already done so much in that area.

  119. All the Masons and Mrs. Mike, thank you! I missed you guys. :) :)

  120. Sheesh, my response was almost incoherent! Sorry about that. I really promise to start proofreading. I hope you get the gist of what I meant to say. Back to watching the Olympics (that's why I'm typing in a hurry).

  121. Johanne - I believe it is a case where individual businesses are free to business as they wish, as long as the reason that they choose to not do business isn't inherently discriminatory :-p

    Which is as convoluted as it sounds and is why we keep so many lawyers employed.

    So, you cannot choose to not rent an apartment to people because they are black, although you could deny them for other reasons like insufficient income. I suspect most of these laws came out of the unfortunate time in our history where people were systematically screwing over other people for purely racist reasons.

  122. I'm sorry, I'm in the midst of a huge project-piles of paper all over my desk and a scary deadline approaching.

    JoAnna, just where are we supposed to go with any kind of discussion if you keep falling back on different definitions of words according to your Catholic faith? So now "hate" has a separate Catholic definition too, eh? Well, why don't you prove (with evidence) that the FRC promotes loving homosexuals and treating them like human beings without the use of coercion, indoctrination or faulty research to attempt to control their sexual behavior?

    And just so we're on the same boat, do we agree that "evidence" means "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid" ?

    Leila, I guess "direct questions" has a different meaning in my atheist secret handheld dictionary. Clearly we have different ideas about what constitutes "hate groups" and so forth so that should be interesting for any future debates around here, especially if we ever find ourselves talking about Catholic persecution, I mean "disagreement about public displays of alignment or identity with Catholic religion and culture"

  123. Miss G, this is very interesting! Yes, we clearly do not agree on the concept of hate. Not even in the same universe, methinks. To me, hate still means HATE. You know, seething, raging, evil, ugly HATE which wishes harm on other human beings. Wanting, perhaps, to see them killed or eliminated, even in heinous ways. Denying their humanity and seeing them as less than human. (Hey, the word "abortion" just popped into my head for some reason, but that is another subject.)

    But this is interesting:

    if we ever find ourselves talking about Catholic persecution, I mean "disagreement about public displays of alignment or identity with Catholic religion and culture"

    Why would America, the land of freedom of religion and founded as such, limit or define how Catholics display their identity? Or determine which public displays of our Faith are allowable? What is this, the Soviet Union? Why shouldn't Catholics be free to live our Catholic Faith without government force and coercion, just as we have for all the years before Obama came to power? Yes, there was a time before Obama, when Catholics were free to be Catholic outside of our homes and parishes, believe it or not.

    By the way, for anyone who truly believes that the left cares about freedom and about the religious liberty, please, go back and read this post if you missed it or if you are new here:

  124. And just for the heck of it Gwen, I am going to try again to have you answer the direct questions (I honestly don't think they were complicated), just in case you are willing to give them a shot. I think they are clear, and so I am sorry if you don't. But here they are, one more time:

    Gwen, You weren't trying to draw a parallel between KKK and FRC as an organization? What were you trying to do? Because the KKK actually is a hate group, so what's the connection you were making?

    SPLC puts both the KKK and the FRC in the "hate group" category, as if they were the same! They also put the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in the "hate group" category. I get emails from NOM and support their mission. According to SPLC, I am supporting a hate group. Do you agree, Gwen? Am I a hater? Is NOM a "hate group"?

    I mean, who here has ever said that the KKK or pedophilia groups are good organizations? Your last paragraph makes it look like we have aruged that! Clarify?

    Again, I made those questions as clear as possible, and as direct as possible. I don't even think we need to agree on the definition of the word "hate" for you to answer them. Thanks!

  125. Leila,
    Sorry I just saw your question as to why some liberals are making a big deal about CFA.

    Essentially, some people think being Gay is equivalent to being black while you think it is akin to being a pedophile. Therein lies the discrepancy

    While everyone technically reserves the right to say what they please, if CFA came out and said they think God is not blessing America because we stopped enslaving black people there would rightly be protests and it wouldn’t surprise me to hear politicians commenting on it.

    Secondly, the issue transcends CFA and is about the issue of businesses and gay rights more broadly. While NOT the case in CFA, in many states Gay people CAN be fired for being gay. Furthermore if CFA (or any business) is in a state with legal gay marriage and they refuse to give benefits to same sex partners…that is understandably going to be a problem


  126. CS, you are right. There will be lot of problems when we start to confuse states of being with behaviors. They are different. But with the lack of philosophical, logical and reasoned thought (and no teaching of such in schools anymore), people seemingly cannot separate the concepts of human dignity (inherent in everyone, not willed or chosen) and human behavior (chosen, willed).

    By the way, what, in your mind, is a sexual orientation? To me, it's a state of being, and it covers a wide spectrum of inclinations. What is a sexual orientation to you?

    And, to clarify, homosexual sin is not the same as the sin of pedophilia. Neither is adultery the same as homosexual sin. But all are sexual sins. I do not equate them, but they are all sexual sins, yes. Same with fornication, masturbation, etc. All are gravely sinful, some are worse by degree than others. However, no one I know would "equate" homosexual acts with the rape or molestation of children. I'm not implying you are confused about that, CS, but some readers might be.

  127. Leila,

    Just to clarify. You are saying if person A claims to love Christians:those who accept Jesus as their savior but hates their behavior and finds worshiping Jesus and performing his works sinful, person A is not anti-christian? He has nothing against christians just something against what he perceives to be sin ( which is acting like a christian ?

    Because (in my opinion ) most Christians believe to be Christian is to ACT Christian and if a person or society is unaccepting of Christian behavior one could claim they are unaccepting of Christians

    It is unrelentingly hypocritical for you not to see this distinction. Perhaps what I am about to say is going to blow your mind or maybe you understand it and have decided to pretend to ignore it to further ostracise your opposition but here it is. Acting out on your Gayness is PART of being gay in the same way acting like a Christian is PART of being one.


  128. Just to be clear, then, CS, would you agree with this statement, too:

    Acting out alcoholism is PART of being predisposed to alcoholism, and acting out on your pedophile-ness is PART of being having a pedophile attraction.


    We always MUST act out on our inclinations and attractions, correct? Is that what you are saying?

  129. CS, Yes. If a Muslim says he loves me but he hates that I am living life as a Christian, I have no problem with that. I believe he can do both.

    If my daughter is became an atheist, I would love her just as dearly, and I would absolutely hate the fact that she is an atheist.

    Is that really hard for you to understand?

    Maybe this will help:

    If my daughter is an adulterer (or a cutter), and she is very happy in her adultery (or cutting), I still love her. I would hate that she is committing adultery, or cutting, but I still would love her.

    Not quite sure why the left can't make such distinctions? It seems easy peasey.

  130. LOL, and nothing you could say could "blow my mind". Sin is sin. There are no new sins. Just like there are no new truths, or new ideas. This is where a classical education can be helpful, to connect us to the great thinkers and philosophers that came before us, whose shoulders we stand on.

    Human nature does not change.

  131. I am not particularly dialed into the gay scene But I atleast know what they mean. In arguing with people we at least need to make sure we understand our opponents definitions of words or we will talk past each other.

    I would have trouble labeling someone who thought chickens or children were attractive a zoophile or pedophile if they never made any efforts to flirt or have sexual contact with chickens or children....would you?


  132. *And when I say there are no new ideas, I mean philosophically. Not technological inventions. Just to be clear.

  133. "I would have trouble labeling someone who thought chickens or children were attractive a zoophile or pedophile if they never made any efforts to flirt or have sexual contact with chickens or children....would you?"

    I would say that's their sexual orientation, wouldn't you? Whether they act on it or not?

  134. Leila,

    “CS, Yes. If a Muslim says he loves me but he hates that I am living life as a Christian, I have no problem with that. I believe he can do both.”

    Whoa Leila I Am confused so I hope you can clear it up for me. If a Muslim says he loves and respects you AS A CHRISTIAN but does not respect your right to act like one and is working hard so that you can no longer have hetero marriages or go to church (manifestations of your religion) then you wouldn’t consider the muslim to be against Christianity or you as a person who is a Christian.

    “We always MUST act out on our inclinations and attractions, correct? Is that what you are saying?”

    No, but you must act on your inclination in order for it to be considered your inclination. I can’t be an alcoholic if I’ve never had a drink before.

    “Is that really hard for you to understand?”
    You seem to think everyone is so much dumber than you and can’t possibly understand your complicated theories, that is not it. We simply don’t agree on what is analogous to gayness. Your daughter being an adulterer or cutter has nothing to do with her being your daughter; these things are not a manifestation of her being your daughter. Having gay sex and relationships is a manifestation of and part of being gay


  135. “I would say that's their sexual orientation, wouldn't you? Whether they act on it or not?”

    No, not necessarily. It depends the degree to which they were attracted and the degree to which they controlled it.

    If a grown man was attracted to women and had sexual relationships with them but on the side was attracted to girls never did anything about it and distanced himself from them I would consider him absolutely hetero and normal

    If another grown man was attracted exclusively to little boys but was a monk or something and didn’t fantasize and tried to banish the thoughts from his mind, I would consider him asexual, not a homo-pedophile

    What do you think about porn users? There is a lot of stuff out there with young teenagers male-male and female-female, I don’t think all the people who watch and get excited are gay or pedophiles I just think you can make anything sexually appealing, and just because you are attracted to something it doesn’t mean that is your orientation?


  136. CS, let me try this again:

    I respect and love all people because they are people. I don't have to respect or love their choices. I still am not quite sure that you are acknowledging a distinction between a person and his actions. Can you acknowledge that distinction?

    I would never expect a Muslim who loves me to respect me as a Christian. I would assume that he loves me as a human being. He would not like nor even necessarily respect my Christian beliefs or any actions that might come from those beliefs. Why should he? As long as he respects me as a human being, I'm good with that! :)

    If he hinders my freedom of movement (by house arrest) and/or freedom of religion (by not letting me worship, or not letting me avoid sin, or not letting me perform acts of charity and service), then we have come to a place where laws need to protect those rights that I have (all human beings have a right to religious freedom, and rights of conscience). Now, if your next comment is to say that I am restricting gay people's "right" to be gay, I'm certainly not. Gay couples are free to live together, and do whatever sexual things they want. Same with heterosexuals. Have I ever stopped an adulterer by issuing a citizen's arrest, for example? Nope, I have not.

    But there is no "right" to marriage, gay or not. In fact, human beings both on a religious and civil level are denied marriage all the time, for various reasons. My lobbying in the public square to stop the movement to redefine marriage does not hinder any gay person in any gay sexual acts they want to act upon, not does it hinder them from living as a couple or buying a home, etc. Sorry, but they are quite free to act, and to sin, just as I am.

    But this surprises me. You are asserting that someone who is gay has to act on it or he's not gay? Really? So, the teen who is in Iran, who has strong sexual attractions to other males, but is not allowed in his society to act on those feelings… he is not actually gay (some would use the term "same sex attracted")? Then, he doesn't need "gay rights", does he, since he's not gay? Is that what you are saying? If not, please clarify.

    Bottom line, "inclination" means one is inclined to do something. It does not imply that the inclination is acted upon.

    So this statement you made -- "No, but you must act on your inclination in order for it to be considered your inclination" -- makes absolutely no sense. An inclination toward something does not imply that the act must follow.

    If I could ask again: What is an orientation?

  137. I see you did answer about orientation, so let me ask you further:

    What of the man who does have fantasies about little boys, but never acts on it (either because of great self-control, or because there are no little boys he can access)? Is he normal and hetero because he has a wife and has sex with her? Or, does he have a sexual orientation towards little boys?

    Porn…I think porn can distort and confuse anyone. I think the amount of objectification and experimentation and sickness that is encompassed by porn of all kinds is what makes so many people confused when they make it part of their lives.

    When I am speaking of "orientation", I mean the preference one has, sexually. What they are "oriented" toward (thus the word "orientation").

    It's the common usage of that word. But I'm guessing you don't want to use the common usage of "sexual orientation"?

    Okay, I'm off to confession. See you in a bit!

  138. You seem to think everyone is so much dumber than you and can’t possibly understand your complicated theories

    Whoa, one more thing. You must not read this blog as much as I thought, because I am constantly saying that 1) none of these are "my" theories or ideas, and 2) none of them are complicated. They are quite simple.

    People and emotions are complicated. Ideas and principles are simple.

  139. “I would never expect a Muslim who loves me to respect me as a Christian. I would assume that he loves me as a human being. He would not like nor even necessarily respect my Christian beliefs or any actions that might come from those beliefs. Why should he? As long as he respects me as a human being, I'm good with that! :)”

    I mean I get it I guess. I think we’ll just have to move on. I understand the notion that Christian ‘love’ is different than secular love.’ But as a black women if someone said they didn’t respect that I had the right to vote or own property but ‘loved’ me I would be pretty damn skeptical of that ‘love’ Its not that I don’t understand the concept of loving your son and hating the fact that hes a murderer but that doesn’t seem like that’s what this is..but I digress.


  140. “What of the man who does have fantasies about little boys, but never acts on it (either because of great self-control, or because there are no little boys he can access)? Is he normal and hetero because he has a wife and has sex with her? Or, does he have a sexual orientation towards little boys?”

    I’m having trouble defining sexual orientation to be honest. I’m not being purposefully obtuse but because creating an all inclusive definition is difficult.

    Does it have to be natural? Can it be cultivated? Does it have to be a persistent desire? Does it have to include emotions?

    I have watched obscure porn with a group of people (it was supposed to be funny not sexual). The men were excited when there was multiple men and one women, the inverse is true with the women. I wouldn’t consider any of these people there to be gay even if they fantasize about it. I have also known some women to experiment with other women, they are also not necessarily gay. I am not trying to be disgusting only agreeing with you that sexuality can be perverted and I think people can become attracted to anything making it difficult to determine their orientation…


  141. Hey, I certainly agree with your last sentence. We live in very perverse times.

    It's important to define "sexual orientation" because it's enshrined into law. One may not discriminate on the basis of it. So, it needs to have a concrete meaning.

    And, when you say this:

    But as a black women if someone said they didn’t respect that I had the right to vote or own property but ‘loved’ me I would be pretty damn skeptical of that ‘love’

    Yes, I understand, but remember that being a woman or being black is a state of being, not a behavior. But let's push it further and let me pose this to you: It would not be hard to understand a parent still loving a child but not favoring that child's right to vote. If someone thinks that women are akin to "children", I would call them very sadly misguided, and wrong, but not hateful. After all, there were many men who loved their wives dearly, pre-sufferage, but did not think they should be allowed to vote. Again, misguided, but not hateful.

    As Gwen implies, the liberal definition of "hate" is quite, quite different from common usage. Or, what used to be common usage.

  142. Yes, Gwen, that used to be the sane definition of hate, one that everyone held -- as opposed to the current definition, which is "disagreement."

    That means, by your own standard, you hate Catholics. Huh.

  143. Also, Gwen - like Leila, I find it telling that you have repeatedly ignored my requests for proof about the assertion that the FRC is lobbying for legislation that would "export" homosexuals, and that you have ignored my questions regarding the alleged similarities of the KKK to the FRC. It seems you are all bark and no bite.

  144. No JoAnna, we're getting nowhere fast. I kept giving you evidence (quotes, names, websites) and you keep repeating the same old mantra, "give me evidence!"

    So, I've asked you for something I expect you'd be able to demonstrate in your sleep: concrete proof that the FRC speaks lovingly towards and about homosexuality and you have yet to provide anything. I think you've got it backwards, you're all bark and bite but there's no thigh to bite : )

    And now you're also changing around the definition of the word "hate" a practice (changing the definition of words) you like to accuse everyone else of doing.

  145. Wait, Miss G… we have to speak "lovingly towards and about homosexuality" to prove we don't hate homosexuals? Do we also have to speak "lovingly towards and about adultery" to prove we don't hate adulterers?

    I will never speak lovingly about sin, but always treat sinners with love and respect. My gosh, I'd love to give Antoine Dodson the biggest hug and invite him to dinner!

    Can't say it enough:

    Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.:

    The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love.

    For those who have ears to hear.

  146. Hmm, I'm right in the middle of the homosexual situation. My sister-in-law is a lesbian. I love my sister-in-law and respect her. I have also met her partner who I think is a wonderful person. I also take care of two girl who have gay uncles and I suspect a gay grandma. I don't think anyone of this people would say I have not welcomed them or loved them. They are welcomed and I respect them. I do not think their actions are morally right.
    I told my sister-in-law I would not go to a Pride parade as I do not understand the need to have a parade where people are naked. Why do homosexuals need a parade where they walk naked? Heterosexual don't. Since my sister-in-law is not flamboyant as homosexual she actually agrees with me.

    If my sister-in-law got a civil union with her partner, I would feel very uncomfortable to have my children as a flower girl or ring bearer. Since they are the only nieces and nephews, it would be tough because my understanding of marriage is totally different. I would prefer that the law doesn't recognize any marriage or give any tax breaks. I don't think I would attend. I am saying this as someone who had two children born out of wedlock. I finally understand a bit more what the Catholic Church actually teaches. And yes, I accept all it's teachings.

  147. Chantal, seems like you are not a hater! :) Gwen, do you agree?

    And, the Pride parades… oh, dear God. When I see that they bring children to these disgusting displays (nudity, men in g-strings rubbing genital-on-genital, utter lewdness, etc.) it seriously makes me wonder if we have completely lost our sanity or any sense of decency? Truly, I am glad to hear that your lesbian sister-in-law does not approve. I actually hold out hope that most homosexuals would be as disgusted by those displays as the rest of us. But to bring children (as Home Depot and CHOP did to one, setting up children's booths, etc.) is just unconscionable. I have a post coming on that issue at some point.

  148. Gwen, I re-read through all of your replies and I did not see you cite any direct evidence to prove your assertions that the FRC, as an organization, supports the exile of homosexuals from the US, nor have you provided any evidence to support your assertions that the FRC, as an organization, says that gay people should be shot, lynched, or subjugated into chattel slavery.

    I went and poked around the FRC website, and here's what they DO say (emphasis mine):

    Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects. While the origins of same-sex attractions may be complex, there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools. Attempts to join two men or two women in "marriage" constitute a radical redefinition and falsification of the institution, and FRC supports state and federal constitutional amendments to prevent such redefinition by courts or legislatures. Sympathy must be extended to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions, and every effort should be made to assist such persons to overcome those attractions, as many already have.

    And here is their mission statement:

    Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.\

    Hmmm... I don't see any reference to shooting, lynching, or enslaving gay people. I see a lot of disagreement, but I don't see any hate.

  149. Also, Gwen - the Catholic church wasn't the ones who changed the definition of "hate" from "wishing evil upon another person" to "disagreement." I'm sorry you think that hate is disagreement. I can assure you that although we disagree on a lot of issues, I don't hate you in the slightest -- although I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.

  150. I like how the fashions from 22 years ago, such as your bridal party picture, were modest. That's a plus.

  151. Nice slicing and dicing of FRC quotes and looking the other way at the links and articles I supplied earlier JoAnna.

    Remind me again, what is particularly "friendly" about this statement from FRC: "Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects. While the origins of same-sex attractions may be complex, there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn"

    Because it reeks of unfounded scientific study, no understanding of human sexuality, and no professional references.

    Oh, and your little bolded statement at the end is basically a plug for FRC programs that invite gay people to "pray away" the gay.

    And actually, you're the one who suggested new definitions for the term "hate."

    Leila, not sure what you want to read me agree/disagree with??
    I don't attend Catholic weddings because I'm opposed to Catholic teaching and doctrine so no harm done if a Catholic won't attend a gay wedding ceremony (more for the rest of us who do support their relationship). I also don't expect a Catholic to eat dinner at my home because I'm unmarried and live with my partner. Besides, my napkins might burst into flame in dissent of CAtholic teaching : )

  152. Gwen, as I said, I re-read all of your replies and I did not see any links proving your assertions re: the FRC.

    As for the professional references and etc. you seek, they are elsewhere on the FRC cite. The link I posted was an overview of their position, and it included links to more in-depth discussions regarding the issues contained therein.

    The statement I bolded is also a "plug" for programs that encourage people with same-sex attracting to live chastely if that is what they CHOOSE to do. Why are you anti-choice, Gwen?

    The statement I provided was not a new definition at all. It's the definition that EVERYONE used to use for "hate," until the term got hijacked by the PC police.

    Seriously, are you even reading my posts?

  153. Remind me again, what is particularly "friendly" about this statement from FRC

    Wait, if we are not sufficiently "friendly" in our dissent, then we are haters? Whoa, that is a new one.

    Friendliness is a requirement. Wow.

    Gosh, I know many a Catholic who has dined with cohabiters and gay people. And vice versa. Dining with people of all stripes and beliefs is not really an issue for us Catholics; sorry that it is for you, Gwen.

    Sometimes you sound … "unfriendly". Are you a hater? ;)

  154. No, the disturbing part is that you don't see any of the FRC literature as harmful to gay people; it's as if all ideas are suddenly "harmless" and without consequences.

    Maybe you'll agree then with all the things being taught in LA school textbooks? One book actually makes the claim the KKK wasn't so bad...maybe that's just another opinion we should all accept?


    And when you scream that the word "hate" is being re-defined (bogus) in order to back up unfounded science and give credit to your viewpoint, we're really in trouble.

  155. Gwen, could you define "harm"? For example, if I am not "friendly" towards adultery, is my "idea" harmful and with consequences to adulterers? If I am not "friendly" towards alcoholism, should my "idea" be deemed harmful to alcoholics? Should I be silenced? Would I be a hater? I really am curious, but I cannot get an answer. Can "harm" mean "making someone feel bad about themselves" or "making someone feel offended"?

    I guess now I don't know if we agree on the definition of "hate" OR "harm".

    Gosh, the KKK again? Is that because it's like the FRC? Both equivalent "hate groups"? Still not clear on that.


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.