Pope Again Denounces Gay Marriage As Threat To Mankind

popeThe Pope has again launched into what is becoming a disturbing mantra: gay marriage is threatening the future of mankind. Now that the Mayan apocalypse has passed, it appears the Pope is ready with a substituted menace of loving gay couples marrying. Pope Benedict XVI insisted that gender theories supporting homosexuality are false and that the world must confront “the question of what it means to be a man, and what it is necessary to do to be true men.”


The Pope criticized theories suggesting that homosexuality is natural and insists that “[t]he profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious . . . it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears.”

The statement again relies on this false assumption that gay marriage is a threat to family and procreation. The opposite is clearly true. Many such couples want to have children either by artificial insemination or adoption. Same-sex marriage expands the number of families, not reduce that number.

Source: Telegraph

134 thoughts on “Pope Again Denounces Gay Marriage As Threat To Mankind

  1. ““the question of what it means to be a man, and what it is necessary to do to be true men.”

    Become celibate.
    Spurn the penis that God gave you.

  2. This morbid preoccupation with other people’s bedroom preferences does the church no good.

    The church demonstrated its inability to motivate Catholics during the contraceptive debate.

    All-in-all, we are looking at a toothless organization that is running on fumes.

    I studied under Jesuits and have the greatest respect for them and the church, but its time to change.

  3. Steve, The Jesuits are superb teachers. They teach how to really think and are very demanding. They’re about the only aspect of Catholicism w/ any value now.

  4. Steve:

    “This morbid preoccupation with other people’s bedroom preferences does the church no good.”

    *********************

    The RC Church used to be about saving souls from the devil. Today its about saving people from themselves. Maybe they wanted easier competition.

  5. Presumbly, if gay people are allowed to marry they will damage procreation for others, but if they are not allowed to marry they’ll say, “Oh shucks” and become straight so they can marry and procreate?

    Is it this kind of logic that led to the conclusion that God had his only begotten son crucified so that people could be saved from sin?

    Oh, now I get it. Pass the collection plate.

  6. I guess this Pope had NO problem with slave labor and shooting them if they did not work fast enough for him when he was in the Nazi Army during WWII. THAT is what REAL men did according to him. I don’t see any reason for the state to promote gay marriage and can see no benefit for the state for such a thing. If and when gay sex results in children, THEN I will be first in line to promote gay marriage. Absent that, I can see no benefit for it.

    Plus the fact that millions of gays get married every year to others of the opposite sex, so they are not discriminated against. There are lots of kids running around now who would not have been born if gay marriage had been available for their homosexual parents. They would have had gay marriage instead of the standard one.

  7. that the world must confront “the question of what it means to be a man, and what it is necessary to do to be true men.”

    It’s a good question but the Pope’s answer to it is chilling. The Catholic Church is the world’s most dangerous patriarchy and is a danger to us all.

    .

  8. The pope’s definition of what it is to be a true man scares me. It is not defined by any good qualities like loyalty, integrity or truthfulness it is all about sex. He sees no problem with pedophilia but gay married sex is a problem. Of course under the circumstances the Pope hardly has much legitimacy but this statement does explain why he gave a special blessing to the President of Uganda who wants to give her people a law for Christmas that will require the execution of gays. Of course, that is just what Christ would do at Christmas. Lovely.

  9. Pope Benedict XVI insisted that gender theories supporting homosexuality are false and that the world must confront “the question of what it means to be a man, and what it is necessary to do to be true men.”

    The Pope is PROJECTING. HE needs to confront this question for himself. A real man would not be obsessing over the issue of gay marriage at all. A REAL man in his position would be tackling REAL threats to humanity such as poverty, war, climate change, and institutionalized bigotry perpetuated under the auspices of religion.

  10. Is there a reason why we should listen to anything this Pope says since he and his Church are still breaking the law in our country and many other countries by hiding known pedophiles from the authorities? How many of his own priests are gay? Disgusting. WWJD?

  11. I may be excoriated for this, but I’m going to mostly side with the Pope on this. I am not Catholic, and I do believe that any homosexual (not sure if that’s what is preferred terminology there), deserves equal love and respect as any other person of any other orientation. However, I do believe that, as cruel and insensitive it sounds, an increase in homosexuality, or the enabling of it will be tough on the family as we know it and change a lot in this world. I don’t agree with the Pope in that child population decrease or increase is the problem. I also understand that a couple of the same gender could likely raise a child well. However, I feel that the family, as it traditionally has always been, a man and woman with children is foundational to the fabric of society. Men and women are different on a multitude of levels and the saying “he/she is my other half” I find to be more literal than figurative. I believe what prophets of priesthood authority (which I don’t think the Pope has I believe), have given good reason to believe that the man is not “a real man” as the pope describes without a woman, and visa versa. I think a lot of the other struggles of the world as some previous commenters have said need more focus than this…can be alleviated with a stronger focus on our traditional families, to help them realize how a man and woman can raise a child in such a world as this to be of good character, tolerant, charitable, etc. So, basically, I think it comes down to the nature of traditional family being a real source of societal strength.

  12. Ratfink (aka pope Vindictive) is the threat to mankind, especially his anti-condom idiocy.

    Overpopulation leads to more environmental damage and more starving children. And no condoms will lead to a wider spread of HIV/AIDS.

  13. I don’t think condoms are necessarily the answer…though I also don’t think condoms should be outright eliminated. I think the change in culture has made HIV/AIDS more transmittable in that we are more likely to put off marriage, have multiple partners, etc. I would reckon holding off sex until marriage would significantly reduce HIV/AIDS. However, husband and wife I think should be able to share their affection for one another without making a baby every time, therefore prevention like condoms makes sense to me for that.

  14. How about everyone assume the highest gesture of devotion to God and become nuns and priests.

    Wouldn’t mankind be even more doomed due to celibacy lack of procreation?

  15. evan, I will not excoriate you (if I were gay, I would try to), but I will strongly disagree with you and call you out, not on your beliefs, but on what I believe to be the shaky ground (or no ground at all) those beliefs are based on.

    First off, you state “I do believe that any homosexual (not sure if that’s what is preferred terminology there), deserves equal love and respect as any other person of any other orientation. However, I do believe that, as cruel and insensitive it sounds, an increase in homosexuality, or the enabling of it will be tough on the family as we know it and change a lot in this world.”

    I am not sure you can have both – in believing the first you cannot also believe the second.

    Second, you state “I feel that the family, as it traditionally has always been, a man and woman with children is foundational to the fabric of society.”

    You are implying that altering this would somehow undo this magical fabric, although you do not elaborate, you imply this would have negative consequences in some form or another.

    It is fine and dandy to feel a certain way and all, but evidence from other countries already recognizing gay marriage say otherwise. There is no evidence that anything drastic happened in those societies and the sky did not fall.

    Please elaborate on what you think would “change a lot in the world” and we can go from there.

  16. Because a thing is traditional doesn’t make it either the best way or the only way a thing can be. It simply means it’s the way the thing has been. Slavery was a tradition for millenia, we changed that in the US because it wasn’t the better way to treat Americans. Prohibitting divorce was a tradition and the law in many societies and many counties for a very long time. It was a tradition that held women hostage to their husband and was a tradition also endorsed by the Catholic Church. We, at least in the US, have thrown out that historic repressive tradition as well. The tradition of forcing people to hide who they are and who they love is not a value and to force them to live as second class citizens with a different set of rights may offend the guy in the gold brocade dress, but in the US it is contrary to our laws which demand equality (a foreign concept in the RCC and some other religious cults) to all citizens regardless of their religious zealotry.

  17. evanberrett – “I don’t think condoms are necessarily the answer”

    You don’t think, period. You’re living in a fantasy world, in denial of facts.

    The only person who has to obey your religion is you. Those who don’t belong to your cult don’t have to listen to it or you, especially when your and pope Vindictive’s”advice” is to make the problem worse.

  18. Juris, how long of a comment are you willing to read? :p. Nothing wrong with calling me out. I do feel you can have both though. I feel comfortable in saying that any homosexual deserves the same respect and equality as I have, that I believe in a God who loves he/she and I the same regardless. But I also believe the family, as it was originally designed and as I feel it should be does not work exactly as it should with couples of the same gender. I don’t hate or think less of anyone who wants the same kind of family with a same-sex coupling, but I just don’t find it to be the same. It’s an honorable endeavor to raise a family no matter who does it.

    I’m not saying the fabric of society is “magical”, or somehow incomprehensible. I don’t think that a world-wide acceptance of homosexual marriage or what have you will have a sudden and dramatic impact. Rather, as I pointed out in the previous comment regarding this discussion, I really feel that man and women have contributions to a family “unit” if you will, that without one gender or the other, some elements are lost. As a proponent of building the family to combat the ills of the world, I think those elements are essential. Does that make sense?

  19. P Smith: You’re right about obedience. My obedience is by choice as well. But I don’t see how “my advice” would make things worse…how would putting off sex till marriage and using condoms after then make things worse?

    And please don’t be hostile, I try to put a lot of thought actually in what I say and I’m willing to listen to what others have to say. Believe it or not, I’m willing to change as I understand truths better.

  20. nick spinelli
    December 21, 2012 at 10:44 am

    Pedophile priest are the threat.

    *****

    Ditto!

    I wonder how two adults of the same sex who love each other and marry can be considered a threat to mankind.

  21. evan, I enjoy reading so make your comment as long as it needs to be to get your point across. To answer your question, “No,” it does not make sense to me. Again, you speak in generalizations and you need to elaborate to further the discussion. E.g.:

    “But I also believe the family, as it was originally designed and as I feel it should be does not work exactly as it should with couples of the same gender”

    Specifically, in what ways would the family not “work exactly as it should” with same sex marriage?

    “I really feel that man and women have contributions to a family “unit” if you will, that without one gender or the other, some elements are lost. As a proponent of building the family to combat the ills of the world, I think those elements are essential.”

    What specific elements are lost?

    No doubt each parent brings contributions to the family, but I think those contributions have already evolved from the traditional man/woman role. The family unit of old has evolved. Generally speaking, the majority of both parents must work, must care for the child, and must contribute to household duties. So I think the roles of man/woman, and their respective contributions to the family, are already strikingly similar and becoming more so.

    Again, believing something is one thing, but the validity of the basis to form those beliefs is another matter.

  22. “that the world must confront “the question of what it means to be a man, and what it is necessary to do to be true men.”

    THIS from an old man in a white dress wearing ruby slippers? You’ve GOT to be KIDDING!

  23. Kraaken, too funny. I heard the other day that those are not just any pair of red slippers, they are actually specially made by Prada. No joke. Only the finest for the Almighty. I wonder when indulgences will be resurrected.

  24. Remember Mr. Turley argues for plural marriage under the sought after definition of marriage as the union of “Loving & Committed” persons. Under that definition all co-habit couples become similarly situated and have a claim to the same benefits afforded marriage.

  25. Of course he is against it.

    There is no greater threat to world peace than people who love each other and look out for one another.

    Except perhaps the aforementioned pedophiles.

  26. One small step for man..
    One giant step for mankind.

    I play dominos, you play dominos, I can beat you at dominos…

    If China would promote gay marriage there are enough of those folks to go around that they could end their one child per couple rule. Because that rule causes abortions of females which leads to too many males which should lead to gay marriage. Or is my logic twisted?

  27. Evanberrett,

    Why do STRAIGHT men and women continue to produce gay and lesbian babies/children?

    Must be good, wouldn’t you say?
    Or did god screw up?

  28. The Pope was a member of the Hitler Youth Group. It shows. He was born in 1927. That is Old. Perhaps we need a new German who is more Youthful.

  29. And once again I ask, what “damage” can same-sex marriage possibly do to the human race, that countless millions of rotten heterosexual marriages haven’t already done.

    And the Pope discussing human morality – in the vile absence of L.A.’s Cardinal Mahony’s bleeding head on a church plate – is beyond logic.

    I suspect that sooner rather than later, the Supreme Court will rule on the obvious – “marriage” is a contract, and gender is entirely immaterial.

    Then we can move on to the really interesting issue, because according to the esteemed Ray Kurzweil, we’ll soon have some curious eggs to fry, when it comes to who’s zooming who.

  30. “And once again I ask, what “damage” can same-sex marriage possibly do to the human race, that countless millions of rotten heterosexual marriages haven’t already done.”

    Add more? It isn’t a question of damage, but terms. Obviously, I’m for civil-union but not same-sex marriage. Just terms we can argue about forever. I go with Elton John on this.

    As a personal aside: My step-brother has only come out in the last few years; he has had a wonderful partner for the last 13 years. I finally got to meet him at my mother’s wake this month, with a big hug (I am not a hugger, hate hugs, but he was worth it for the happiness he gives my step-brother).

    My step-brother should have got the balls to say it so many years earlier like I did as an atheist in the 60’s. He knew my mother and I would be on his side (we’ve both been on the side of recognizing homosexual partnerships by law in some way since the late 60’s and very vocal about it to family and friends), and acknowledged that to me at the wake, but couldn’t bring himself to face his father and his brothers. Yet all accepted, even if with reservations, even though Catholic. All embraced his partner as meaningful to him.

    As for the Pope, what you want him to throw out almost two millennium of reasoned Catholic doctrine for your sensibilities?

  31. Ariel, I am sorry for your recent loss. Condolences.

    “I’m for civil-union but not same-sex marriage.” That may be the compromise. I am not opposed to that as long equal rights for each. But I am not gay either, and I can understand why any gay person takes offense to a different label.

    I am curious if not too personal… did you suspect prior to your brother’s revelation. Good for him anyway to have the courage to do so – better late than never. It has to be difficult to live a lie like that.

    I hope you were being facetious with that last sentence. If not, I will pray for you. :-)

  32. Ariel sez: “As for the Pope, what you want him to throw out almost two millennium of reasoned Catholic doctrine for your sensibilities?”

    ******************************************************

    History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.

    History has the relation to truth that theology has to religion — i.e., none to speak of.

    Robert A. Heinlein

  33. Well said OS. If gays can’t marry the person of their choice, they are not as free as the rest of us. How could any religion be against equal treatment r all people?

  34. raff,

    Almost all organized religion is predicated on some animals being more equal than others. How can you be in if there is no outside?

  35. raff, if Jesus was pissed off at the moneychangers, one does not have to speculate very much about what he would think about the denizens of the Vatican and their leader. I have no doubt they would excommunicate Him for heresy.

  36. Hey for all you strict traditionalists …..any historian will tell you that a true historical traditional marriage is between one man and as many woman he can afford, or steal ….one man and one woman is in the course of human events a fairly new invention….

  37. “I suspect that sooner rather than later, the Supreme Court will rule on the obvious – “marriage” is a contract, and “gender is entirely immaterial.”

    First of all gender is not sex: it’s the term to describe masculine, feminine, common, or neuter, in language. That it was grabbed to describe human sexuality is deplorable, and that so many have embraced it is even more deplorable. Then again many of those same think decimate means the same as exterminate…though for a different reason. H.L. Mencken gives why.

    We have two sexes, with the outlier hermaphrodite which is still an expression of the two, but permutations of bonding don’t need the word “gender”, nor does acknowledging that some people are born the wrong sex. Gender is a euphemism needed by people that can’t face the variability of human sexuality, they have to put it in different terms to deal with it. We have two sexes as the base, by reproductive organs, the expression beyond heterosexuality is a variation. So what, big deal.

    “gender is entirely immaterial”. Your phrase lends to the argument that marriage “is between two loving people” so used by homosexual agenda groups to reframe the term marriage. It’s dishonest. Face the term head on, except its meaning, and make something new. Sex isn’t immaterial.

    The reason I write “make something new” is it would be clearly defined, with limits. The agenda phrase, which I’m using but you didn’t, of “between two loving people” allows the marriage of any two people. That shouldn’t be determined by percentage of population, or your religious or biological or genetic prejudice. The phrase has no meaning otherwise except the prejudice of the user, his arbitrary limits, the same limits used on homosexuals.

    Currently in the USA, there are a number of married couples that are brother-sister unions. They had no idea, no knowledge of their relationship because of various separations, adoption, halves, however and whatever. By the argument that marriage is between “two loving people”, why shouldn’t their marriages be accepted? Don’t vary from my words this paragraph, you’d be dishonest, and don’t give the genetics issue (a lot of unrelated people, Jews and Tay-Sachs for example, shouldn’t marry). If you bring up incest, after what I wrote, you must be Catholic, or Episcopalian, or Protestant, or post-Protestant. Or just prejudiced by definition.

  38. Ariel said:

    “As for the Pope, what you want him to throw out almost two millennium of reasoned Catholic doctrine for your sensibilities?”

    That sounds as though you are of the mind, that the length of time a belief is held, validates the belief. I’m guessing you can see the logical flaw in your own observation.

    “It isn’t a question of damage, but terms.”

    Nothing in his most recent remarks came close to “terms.”

    If you avail yourself to the Vatican’s own website, you can read the Pope’s remarks in their entirety, which included the following statement:

    “The campaign for granting gays the right to marry and adopt children is an “attack” on the traditional family made up of a father, mother and children.”

    By definition, the word “attack” involves damages. If the subject was “terms” I’m guessing he would have used different language.

    “Even though Catholic. All embraced his partner as meaningful to him.”

    And how exactly does an honorable Catholic square this “embracing” with Doctrine?

    “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
    (Leviticus 20:13)

    In the not too distant future, I suspect the entire yammering over same-sex marriage will be seen as a silly social spat that people “used to have,” kind of like women exposing their legs.

    * November. ’03 – Massachusetts’ top court ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry. The first legal same-sex marriages in the United States took place in Massachusetts in 2004 following the decision.

    In ’08, Democrat governor Deval Patrick signed a law that allowed out-of-state same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts, repealing a 1913 law that banned marriages not considered valid in the couples’ home states.

    * October, ’08 – Connecticut legalized gay marriage, when its high court overturned a ban on same-sex marriage. Local authorities began issuing marriage licenses in November.

    * May,’08 – California Supreme Court ruled that gender restrictions on marriage violate state equal rights protections.

    October ’09, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill that recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states that went into effect on January 1, 2011.

    * April, ’09 – Iowa’s Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that a gay marriage ban violated the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples. The state’s first legal same-sex weddings took place later that month.

    * April, ’09 – Vermont lawmakers overrode a governor’s veto of a gay-marriage bill, making the New England state the first in the country to legalize gay marriage with a legislative vote. Its law took effect on September 1 that year.

    * June, ’09 – New Hampshire authorized same-sex nuptials.

    * November, ’09 – Maine’s law permitting same-sex marriage was repealed by a “people’s veto.” The law was approved by Maine’s Legislature but was not implemented after it was overturned by a popular vote.

    * December, 09 – The District of Columbia’s City Council voted to legalize same-sex marriage in the region. This came after the council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states where those unions were legal.

    * August, ’10 – A federal judge in California struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

    * June, ’11 – New York became the sixth U.S. state to allow gay marriage. More than 21,000 gay and lesbian couples from New York would marry within the first three years.

    * February, ’12- The Washington state Senate passed legislation to legalize gay marriage on February 2. The bill is now before the state’s House of Representatives, where it is expected to win swift approval.

    * February, ’12 – A U.S. appeals court ruled that California’s gay marriage ban violates the constitution in a case that is likely to lead to a showdown on the issue in the Supreme Court.

    You don’t need to be Nostradamus to see how this debate will end.

  39. Is the pope gay?

    How else can we explain his virulent campaign against homosexuals?

    “What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence,” Bertrand Russell wrote, “is an index to his desires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious.” The Vatican’s current obsession with homosexuality suggests that something interesting might be going on. Are some of the Church’s most powerful cardinals struggling with their sexuality? Could the Pope himself be gay?

    The Holy Father launched his fiercest attack on gays, insisting that the World Pride festival in Rome was “an offence to the Christian values” of the city. Homosexuality, he maintained, is “objectively disordered” and “contrary to natural law”.

    The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the Church’s sinister enforcement agency, forbade a priest and a nun from ministering to gays in the United States, after they refused to sign a statement testifying that “homosexual acts are always objectively evil”. Gays, the Vatican believes, bring their misfortunes upon themselves. “When civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right,” the CDF asserts, “neither the church nor society at large should be surprised when … violent reactions increase.” Gay rights campaigners maintain that between 150 and 200 gay men are murdered in Italy every year.

    For this reason, if for no other, we should take this papal bull seriously. So let us examine the two main themes of the Vatican’s edicts: homosexuality, it maintains, is both immoral and unnatural.

    Morality is surely meaningless unless it refers to the impact we have on other people. Interestingly, even the Vatican appears unable to point to any ill-effects of safe sex between consenting gay adults, other than to suggest that its acceptance might “deprave” or “corrupt” other people. What this appears to mean is that they might be led away from the teachings of the Church. Heterosexuality is quite another matter. Reproduction among prosperous people has a demonstrable impact on the welfare of others: thanks to the depletion of resources and the effects of climate change, every child born to the rich deprives children elsewhere of the means of survival. In a world of diminishing assets, being gay is arguably more moral than being straight.

    The claim that homosexuality is “unnatural” is more interesting. This could mean one of two things. Perhaps the Pope is suggesting that it lies beyond the scope of “normal” human behaviour. If so, this has uncomfortable implications for an association of old men who wear dresses, hear voices and practise ritual cannibalism.

    Alternatively, he might be suggesting that homosexual behaviour is at variance with that of the non-human world. Here too, however, the Church has a problem. “Biological Exuberance”, a book by the science writer Bruce Bagemihl, documents homosexuality in no fewer than 470 animal species. He shows how groups of manatees carouse in gay orgies; how male giraffes start “necking” and end up fornicating, how female Japanese macaques will pair off for weeks at a time, fondling each other and having sex.

    As New Scientist magazine records, at the beginning of the last century the embarrassed keepers of Edinburgh Zoo had repeatedly to re-christen their penguins, after they found that the loving couples they observed were not all that they seemed. Female roseate terns sometimes mate with each other for life, allowing themselves to be fertilised by males, but making nests and bringing up their young together. I would hesitate to describe what pygmy chimpanzees, orang-utans or long-eared hedgehogs get up to, even in a liberal newspaper.

    The world’s wildlife, in other words, is depraved. But we would be hard put to call it unnatural. Self-enforced celibacy, by contrast, is all but unknown among other animal species. If any sexual behaviour is out of tune with the natural world, it is surely that of the priesthood.

    My guess is that the Pope is not gay, but that he has found in homosexuals a necessary enemy, an external threat which allows the Holy See to justify its iron grip on the lives of the faithful. Though some brave priests and bishops have sought to resist its excesses, for centuries the Vatican has picked on the victims of existing prejudice and persecution. It is no longer allowed to burn heretics and witches at the stake, so now it preys instead upon homosexuals and pregnant women, exposing gays to violent abuse, seeking to prevent even the rape victims of Kosovo from taking the morning-after pill.

    Homosexuality is surely both natural and moral. Can the same be said of the Pope?

  40. Interesting.

    If the Catholic Chuch offers a postion on homosexuality they are criticised from one end of the earth to the other.

    When the largest religious faith in the world takes an adverse postion on homosexuailty, that is, those of the Islamic faith that follow the teachings of the Qur”an, most of these same critics run and hide and are nowhere to be seen. You see they are totally gutless unless it is christianity that takes a position based on their faith and then of course they are tough guys.

    The following is a very small extract from the Mission Islam public web site. There is a great deal to read on the subject there (and the Churches are just as justified in taking a stance based on their faith as are others based on theirs whether you agree with their faith or not).
    ——————
    “The Islamic Society of North America:

    Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi of the ISNA said: “Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption… No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education.””

    “There are many reasons why it is forbidden in Islam. Homosexuality is dangerous for the health of the individuals and for the society. It is a main cause of one of the most harmful and fatal diseases. It is disgraceful for both men and women. It degrades a person. Islam teaches that men should be men and women should be women. Homosexuality deprives a man of his manhood and a woman of her womanhood. It is the most un-natural way of life. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of family life.”
    ——————————————

    Please show me where all the opposing views and public critics are? ………. Anyone??????

    As I said. Gutless wonders.

    Me – well I could not care less about any of the churches or the homosexual community or any other “community” for that matter .

    Everyone should just mind their own business, stop their agitating, disharmonious and divisive behaviour and get on with their own lives. It is not going to happen though.

  41. When the Pope speaks, people listen…..
    They listen to the King of the Pedophile Priests…
    To the former Hitler Youth member…
    To the former Nazi Army member….
    To the dean of the pink beanie crowd who are controlled by Remulak….

    When he starts mimicing the phrase: “We are from France”, then we are all in trouble.

    Can Beldar chimne in on this topic?

  42. Cameron

    The people here who support same-sex marriage support same-sex marriage. It’s not that we oppose the Catholic Church’s stand on the subject or the Evangelical movemet’s or Islam’s position or any other opposotion. We support same-sex marriage as a legal and binding contract, the full implementation of the rights os all Americans to have access to all the legal advantages our Constitution grants that citizenship as well as accepting every person’s choice for love and companionship. The comments on this thread and the fact they appear today as opposed to the other times they’ve been expressed is the occassion of the Pope’s recent comments on the subject. Had a similar comment been made by a similarly high ranking Imam representing the Islamic view, the reaction would be the same. Particularly for those of us who are atheists, the specific brand of religion one follows to justify their irrational homophobia is irrelevant.

  43. The Pope is the head of a tribe of flock fleecers spread around the world. In order to fleece a flock the flock must be viable. For a flock to be viable there must be breeding and offspring of young sheep and goats. If there are no young sheep then there is no fleece in the future. So, if you are a Catolic and you flock to the church seven days a week to “Take Mass” and you pay up when the plate comes by, you must not veer off the path of righteousness and take something up the arse now and then. And if you did, say three Hail Marys and go home chastised. Fess up Festus. And pay up.

  44. rcampbell, as a fellow aethist I do not support gay marriage since I can see no benefit to society from it. The state has the unquestioned right to set and define the terms of legal contracts and who may take part. There are no laws agaist co-habitation now, or adultery, etc.. We DO deny lots of people the right to marry the person who they choose to love, such as brother sister unions, father daughter etc.. Does that mean the state has taken their freedom? I do not think so.

    Gays are NOT denied the right to marry at all. Millions of gays have married persons of the opposite sex. so to state that gays cannot marry is simply NOT true. There is NO gayness test before the state issues a marriage license. The law does NOT prohibit gays from marriage at all. The state has every right to set the terms of marriage, just as it has the right to deny plural marriages. Using your definition of freedoms, then polygamists are denied their rights and have lost their freedom.

  45. “I can see no benefit to society from it’

    The benefit is in allowing them full access to the bvenefits of their American citizenship unfettered by the sectarian bonds associated with religious zealotry. And it’s not all about you.

    “Gays are NOT denied the right to marry at all. Millions of gays have married persons of the opposite sex.”

    And yet there are still laws prohibitting such unions. So, it’s hardly moot.

    “such as brother sister unions, father daughter etc.”

    Red Herring Alert!!!

  46. We wonder about the immaculate conception and wonder if indeed there was an artificial insemination involved with the birth of Jesus. We wonder too why there needs to be marriage between men and women. The lawyer in our congregation says he is getting out of divorce law if gay marriage takes effect in these parts. He says that the arguments he hears now are bad enough. Yet we wonder why the Pope is weighing in on this topic. The Mayan Calendar was on his mind.

  47. “Gays are NOT denied the right to marry at all. Millions of gays have married persons of the opposite sex.”

    And yet there are still laws prohibitting such unions. So, it is hardly moot.

    I am sorry, I thought you were an intelligent person, but the quote shows you are not. Maybe you could show me any marriage law in the country which has a test for heterosexuality or gayness, and then prohibits marriage to a person of the opposite sex on that basis of being gay. If there are any such laws, THEN it would be discrimination and illegal under the Constitution. The state has every right to define what constitutes marriage as long as it does not discriminate unfairly and with no legitimate state interest in it. The fact is that if one takes the position that not allowing persons of the same sex to marry is discrimination, then it also must be unfair discrimination to prohibit plural marriages.

  48. ERB,
    There are several states that specifically prohibit same sex unions, whether marriage, common law or civil unions. As long as DOMA is on the books, states are enforcing those laws. Some hospitals refuse to allow same sex couples visitation rights. There have been numerous instances where family members who disapprove of same sex unions have forbidden lifetime partners to participate in funeral arrangements or even attend the funeral because they are not legally married. Discrimination is everywhere you look. Individual states are forbidding same sex unions by hiding behind DOMA. It is now before the Supreme Court, and hopefully they will declare it unconstitutional. Finally, thanks to DOMA, same sex couples cannot file a joint return and get the married couple tax break.

  49. I wasnt able to read all comments so forgive if releating what someone else may have said but a man who devotes his life (presumable) to celibacy and is the head of a church that has condoned pedophilia and continues to protect pedophiles rather then the victims is not someone who can speak, authoritatively, on what a ‘real man” is

  50. I wish you would READ what I wrote. I stated quite clearly that gays are not discrimiated against in the marriage laws since they can and millions of gays HAVE married persons of the OPPOSITE SEX! Just ask Arriana Huffington about that, and they even have children too. Now if the state wishes to redefine marriage, they have that right, but it is NOT discrimination for the state to define marriage the way it wants to. So a state cannot ban Protestants from marrying a Jew or a Catholic. Nor can it ban an older person from marrying a younger one consistent with age of consent laws. Nor can it prohibit black and white from marrying out of their race as the SCOTUS Loving decision noted. THAT is discrimination which as the SCOTUS noted is a violation of the Constitution. The Loving decision which stated that marriage is a RIGHT refered ONLY to one man one woman marriages since gay marriage had not even been thought of at the time. That same SCOTUS upheld that homosexual acts were in FACT still a crime, so to say that they meant Loving to apply to gay marriage is ABSURD on its face.

    Now as for the legal problems that gays have, I think that civil unions are the way to go. In FACT, the Democratic Party and its candidates until this election ALL had that position. I go according to principles, NOT what is politically correct or popular and so my opposition to gay marriage still stands. The state grants marriage and its benefits for ITS OWN ends and reasons, it also helps the individuals. The state has an obvious reason for promoting marriage among its citizens since that it how humans reproduce and it facilitates all kinds of things if there is a legal union. When gay sex results in children, THEN I will be in favor of gay marriage too.

    The Libertarian view is that all citizens should get the same goodies as everybody else and that no person should be denied what others get. I am NOT a libertarian, I am a liberal who takes the standard liberal view that we are ALL interconnected and that we have obligations to the state as well as rights and privileges. That if the state grants something, it should get BACK something in return. I am also in favor of the draft which discriminates against young men, and which takes away their LIVES and liberty, not just who they can marry. I think THAT is a whole lot more substantial an infringement of rights.

  51. Problem with Romer v Evans. , Romer supports polygamy

    “remains to be explained how §501 of the Idaho Revised Statutes was not an “impermissible targeting” of polygamists, but (the much more mild) Amendment 2 is an “impermissible targeting” of homosexuals. Has the Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a “legitimate concern of government,” and the perceived social harm of homosexuality is not?”

  52. ERB,

    By your reasoning, the state could have a vested interest in prohibiting marriage between infertile couple, or couples past childbearing age. You also do not address the fact the IRS discriminates by not allowing same sex couples to file a joint return. Or that many states willfully ignore same sex rights it gives to heterosexual couples, even if they are legally married in another state which permits it. As for gays marrying opposite sex people, on the continuum of human behavior, there are a large number of people who are bisexual. On the other hand, for many, or most, gay persons, the notion of heterosexual intimacy is as repugnant as you seem to find gay intimacy.

    One of my acquaintances is gay. Dave was not able to marry his lifelong partner until just four years ago. The following two links are not easy to read, because I am a new widower too.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/05/1167425/-Widower-after-41-years-Now-what?detail=hide

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/19/1172130/–The-Urn-is-Ready-he-said?detail=hide

  53. NO you are wrong about setting conditions for marriage between one man/one woman, just as it would be wrong to legislate against whites marrying blacks. Loving held that to be wrongful discrimination. It did NOT redeifine marriage as YOU seem to think it did. You refuse to even acknowledge that FACT and use an invalid comparison. As I said earlier, many gays DO marry others of the opposite sex and there are NO laws requiring a gay test to get a marriage license, thus no discrimination.If you feel that it is discrimination, then you also have to grant that polygamists are discriminated against as well since they cannot legally marry more than one person. I am sure we can come up with similar stories of polygamists being hurt by not being able to be legally married and not allowed in to see their loved ones in a hospital because they are not married. So it is OK to discriminate against polygamists,even though that has been around FAR longer than gay marriage, but wrong to discriminate against gays. You are irrational in that, and since you don’t personally know any polygamists, you thus have no sympathy for their plight. Also laws against polygamy has a religious bias built into it since many Mormons and Muslims believe in it and their religion promotes it. So banning it is in effect religious discrimination.

    The state has every right to set the limits and conditions for any contracts it gives which is what legal marriage is. I have NO problem with civil unions to mitigate some of the problems exclusively gay people have in their lives. The state has the RIGHT to grant subsidies to any business that it so chooses. That ALL businesses do NOT get such subsidies does NOT mean that those businesses are discriminated against. In my field of aviation, the government subsidized the airlines for decades. There was NO cry that it was unfair and discrimination that ALL businesses did not get the same. Just because the airlines got a subsidy does NOT mean that it is discrimination if Widget Factory does not get one too.

  54. I Loving, however, the Supreme Court was considering the long recognized right to marry.

    The case did not involve expanding the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The fact that the right to marry someone of the same sex is not objectively rooted in the Nation’s history does not prohibit statutes defining marriage as a union between a man and woman from constitutional attack. Instead, it precludes the right to marry someone of the same-sex from being a fundamental right.

    In light of the foundational and fundamental nature of the institution of marriage, The separate states and Congress are justified in proceeding with caution in considering whether to eliminate a criterion—opposite-sex partners—that has been historically regarded as an essential element of marriage. Under any level of scrutiny, this amply justifies 1 man 1 woman marriage against equal protection attacks.

  55. Monte,
    Your logic does not hold up due to the fact there is no prohibition regarding opposite sex marriage of any kind. No one has proposed limiting the rights of opposite sex people to enjoy the benefits and problems of marriage. The problem comes when people who are born gay are denied the same right as their straight neighbors.

  56. The problem is that gays have the same rights as ALL citizens to marry ANY person of the opposite sex. There is NO discrimination in that. Marriage as defined in Loving does NOT confer ANY right to gay marriage or even to challenge under equal protection rights. The same holds true for polygamous marriages. The state under YOUR conception should also grant polygamy legal status since it denies THEIR right to marriage as their religous beliefs dictate. It also is religious discrimination and infringes on their rights to their practice of religion.

    Just because YOU want gay marriage does NOT make it legally right nor reasonable for society. You cannot wave a magic wand and say that gay marriage is a RIGHT! You CAN do as New York did and make it legal in its statutes. That is quite legal and permissable and is hardly open to legal question. I don’t see the benefit for the state, but that is their right as it is the right of other states to prohibit it.

  57. So I guess that you are also opposed to the military draft as well then. THAT makes young men UNEQUAL to LIFE and liberty since that is taken away from them by legislation Though the MA Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage UPHELD that young men should be discriminated against and denied their rights. So good of you and yours to prefer gays over young men and their rights. You have NO problem screwing them out of their LIVES, but oh how horrible gay marriage is not allowed. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for that kind of thing in which your prejudices are supreme over law and rational thought.

  58. As a change up, to make criminal the actions of a married couple who simultaneously co-habit with other(s) is a direct violation of the right to privacy as outlined in Lawarance v. Texas

  59. ARE,

    Actually the reason why I want gay marriage is precisely legal: equal protection under the 14th Amendment. A stance which is not only legally defensible but just. And if it’s legal at a state level, forcing other states to recognize such couples is legal under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

    What I’d like to know is how does having testamentary rights, visitation rights, etc. inherent in recognizing the relationship for a same sex couple in any way harm a heterosexual couple? I’d also like to know what benefit they get from opposing such? Other than a smug unjustified sense of superiority based in their religiously moral condemnation of others. Surprise! You lot are no better than anyone else. If you don’t like gay marriage? Don’t marry a man. But don’t try to sell that what you want isn’t oppression and bigotry. I’m going to call bullshit on that.

  60. Sorry Gene, buty simply saying that gay marriage is just and legally defensible is NOT proof or argument. I have stated why I think that gay marriage is NOT a right given the Loving ruling of the SCOTUS, and that gays are NOT discriminated against in marriage laws since they CAN LEGALLY marry any person of the opposite sex as all other citizens can. According to your logic we did NOT need the 19th Amendment either since that would be unnecessary under equal protection doctrine and the courts should have ruled that long before the amendment was passed.

    As for the full faith and credit clause, we dodged that bullet when Utah was admitted as a state when Congress told them they would NOT become a state until they outlawed polygamy. So I hope that you will overturn that bit of bigotry by supporting polygamy as well as gay marriage. How about it? Since you feel the state should have little or NO role in saying what marriage should be, then there is NO reason not to support polygamy since it has a long tradition in our civilization and religions FAR more than gay marriage.

    AS for the bigotry bit, I hope that you support reparations for all black Americans for their centuries of slavery. If you do NOT, YOU are clearly a BIGOT who hates black folks.

  61. “And if it’s legal at a state level, forcing other states to recognize such couples is legal under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.”

    Not so grasshopper, No State may impose its definition of marriage upon their sister states or that of the Federal Government.
    It really is that simple

  62. Monte,
    You are misreading what Gene said. The Federal Government can pass a law requiring all states to treat all married couples equally, regardless of gender. The courts did that in the Loving decision which made anti-miscegenation state laws illegal. It will not require congress to take action if the SCOTUS rules DOMA is unconstitutional.

  63. “The Federal Government can pass a law requiring all states to treat all married couples equally, regardless of gender.”

    As the Supreme Court observed long ago, the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States. (1st Circuit 2012)

    First notice clearly the language Husband and Wife, not genderless person.

    One can say the FF&CC is fully in force now, with one states definition of marriage as 1 man 1 woman forced upon all the others.

    Collectively the States have defined the distribution of marital benefits through DOMA, again the legal enactment of state authority

  64. randyjet,

    And you’re simply wrong considering the functions of the 14th and the FF&C Clause. Your entire logic is predicated on the assumption that in the state of nature same sex couples are forbidden by something – presumptively religious – and they aren’t. Many types of mammals – including humans – have naturally occurring homosexual pair bonding. It’s not just mammals either. The behavior has been observed in birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and insects. That fact alone destroys a predicate of your argument; that homosexuality is somehow isn’t a right under the state of nature. The phenomena happens in a state of lawlessness ergo people have that right despite your attempt to take it from them. Your polygamy argument fails because its a false equivalence and there is plenty of sociological evidence why polygamy is a bad idea to encourage. The state’s interest in marriage is strictly secular, i.e. recording the relationship for purposes testamentary, contractual, etc. Your insistence otherwise is a violation of the Establishment Clause that forces your religious preference upon others by force of law. Also, your slavery argument fails simply because calling me a bigot because you are isn’t an argument. Reparations haven’t got shit to do with your willingness to oppress others. Rationalize your bigotry however you like if it makes you feel better, but don’t keep trying to piss in my pocket and tell me its raining. Such rationalizations are meant for you, but I prefer to describe behaviors objectively. Your stance against homosexuals is bigoted. Deal with it. Own your bigotry if you feel that strongly about it, but don’t try to dance your way out of it on ethical or legal grounds. You have none to stand on.

    So how about answering the question: how does having testamentary rights, visitation rights, etc. inherent in recognizing the relationship for a same sex couple in any way harm a heterosexual couple and what benefit do you get from opposing such rights?

    Other than the aforementioned unjustified sense of superiority based in your religiously moral condemnation of others.

  65. What Gene said. Every time I ask someone opposed to same sex marriage how it will affect their own hetero marriage, I get no reply. Crickets.

  66. ” not the legal enactment of state authority.”
    Yet DOMA is that legal enactment through the collective voice of Congress.

    The question before the Court is not the wisdom of providing for or recognizing same-sex marriages as a matter of policy but whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from maintaining statutes that reserve the institution of civil marriage to one-man–one-woman relationships.

    To answer that question the full scope of what it means to be similarity situated must be addressed. As the recent case in Montana illustrates, the co-habit unmarried couple meet the similarity situated upon first look

  67. You must be drunk Gene since I made NO comment about the virtues or the lack of same about homosexuals. You also missed the part where I state I am an atheist. So how the hell you get religion out of my comments is WAY beyond me and the only explanation is you are drunk or mentally impaired. The rest of your post is simply off the wall.

  68. ARE,

    Better drunk than an ignorant bigot.

    Moral condemnation is moral condemnation regardless of the source.

    Answer the question: how does having testamentary rights, visitation rights, etc. inherent in recognizing the relationship for a same sex couple in any way harm a heterosexual couple and what benefit do you get from opposing such rights?

  69. Let me be the first to respond OS then. Using YOUR logic, then how will allowing polygamy affect YOUR hetero marriage? Since it obviously will have NO effect, we should pass a law to enable those folks too to marry the person of their chioce.

    I have no problem with New York passing a law allowing gay marriage since that is the right of the state to do so.Gay marriage is NOT a right though. The same is true for polygamy. If a state wishes to pass such a law allowing that, it is perfectly within their right to do so. I don’t think it is socially productive in a cost benefit analysis,but if New York’s family courts don’t have enough to do, it is certainly their right to give them more business to keep them from getting bored.

    Of course, I think New York will find they will have to pass new laws to deal with the outcomes of divorce between gay couples. For example, what happens when a lesbian in a gay marriage goes out and cheats and becomes pregnant. Who will be forced to pay child support in a divorce? The man or the spouse? Or if by artificial insemination and against the wishes of the spouse, will the spouse still have to pay child support? I think that there are LOTS more important things for our law makers to do than to have to devote scarce time and money to these questions. Then there is the question of Social Security and retirement plans which are done on an actuarial basis in which only heterosexual marriages are assumed. This will have to be adjusted as well with greater costs. So there are lots of fun things that will come up with gay marriage that have not been addressed. Is the cost worth it?

  70. Thank you for showing us ALL that YOU are the bigot! So any person who disagrees with YOUR ideas MUST be a bigot. Way to go! You are by inference drunk as well.

  71. Any person who think depriving others of rights simply because they don’t like how they are is a bigot.

    Thanks for showing you can’t read.

  72. The question remains unanswered.

    How does having testamentary rights, visitation rights, etc. inherent in recognizing the relationship for a same sex couple in any way harm a heterosexual couple and what benefit do you get from opposing such rights?

  73. And still no argument as to why a married couple is barred from a loving committed co-habit relationship with another or others.

  74. “Homosexuality is not a choice so the analogy to polygamy is off the mark.”

    Your logic dictates that sexuality itself, the expression of, is innate. And still no argument as to why a married couple is subject to criminal prosecution for forming a “Loving Committed” co-habit relationship with another or others.

  75. Monte,
    Straw man argument. If you would stay on topic, you might just address your thoughts to why a loving and committed gay couple cannot have the same rights, privileges, tax breaks and (of course) headaches that heterosexual couples are allowed to have without question.

  76. “you might just address your thoughts to why a loving and committed gay couple cannot have the same rights, privileges, tax breaks”

    Simple “Loving & Committed” is an open ended argument that by the very nature of definition must allow for all similar “Loving and Committed” relationships the same access.

    A married couple is subject to criminal prosecution for forming a “Loving Committed” co-habit relationship with another or others. However the unmarried couple is not subject to the same prosecution. Clearly the statutory scheme restricting the behaviour of the married couple is in and of itself an unconstitutional discrimination applied to the term “Loving & Committed” Therefore some other unique compelling rationale is applied to the restriction holding the relationship, AKA marriage as between 1 Man and 1 Woman only.

  77. Monte obviously doesn’t read the science pages…probably because he can’t understand the subject. If he did, or could, he wouldn’t be able to continue spewing his ignorance and foment hate against gays.

    William Rice (U California-Santa Barbara) and Urban Friberg (Uppsala University in Sweden) showed in the Quarterly Review of Biology that the cause of homosexuality is epigenetics, environmental factors that alter genes during gestation.

    In other words, it has been proven to be genetic, though not inherited. It occurs at random, so any foetus can become gay, no matter who the parents are. It also explains the high incidence of twins both being gay.

    Idiots who talk about “choice” need to stifle themselves or be stifled.

  78. P Smith,
    One has to wonder about someone who has this strange obsession with polygamy. Frustrated at rounding up a threesome perhaps? Some folks cannot seem to wrap their heads around the difference between polygamy or polyandry and gay marriage. That is like comparing coconuts with watermelons. One is a scientific fact of birth and the other is a true lifestyle choice. As a matter of fact, I have no investment in preventing polygamy if it is truly consensual. My problem arises in cults that may encourage incest or child abuse. It is no secret that our highly respected host, Professor Turley, has represented polygamist families on the grounds their constitutional eighths have been trampled.

    So, the question once again circles around to, what is wrong with dedicated, committed loving couples getting married with the rights and benefits provided ONLY to married couples by law and insurance companies?

    I have no time for homophobes, bigots or the willfully ignorant.

  79. Idiots who talk about “choice” need to stifle themselves or be stifled.

    How very democratic and decent of you Smith. I guess we can’t wait to see you introduce a law banning such people and denying them their very REAL right to freedom of speech. We can ALL see YOUR concern for others rights and what it leads to.

    As for OS, I see that you are unable to see any point of view other than your own and think that just because YOU say something is a right, then it must be so. That is hubris of the highest order. To say that gay marriage is a “right” is an outright lie since it had NOT even been thought of until a few years ago. In FACT there was no history or legal or moral basis for it at all. My statements about polygamy is simply showing that it is the same as gay marriage in legal terms. The state has the very REAL right to set the terms for marriage consistent with the SCOTUS Loving decision which did NOT make gay marriage a right in any way shape or form. I have no problem with New York passing a gay marriage law, I just think that civil unions would have been quite adequate to address the concerns of gay partners. Of course I am in very good company in this since ALL of the Democratic candidates for President had until recently the SAME position. I guess that you will have to include Obama, Kerry, and others as bigots too. In fact, I seriously doubt that even now that Obama would consider gay marriage to be a RIGHT. If you think it is a right, then you must also use the same measure to judge polygamy since that has some legal history in the US and has been practiced from the beginning of history and been a legal and religious norm. One cannot say that about gay marriage.

    If gay marriage is a right, then why did we need to pass the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote? I think that is a FAR more valid and fundamental RIGHT than gay marriage. Instead of following the Constitution and going throught the stupid process of amendments, we should just rely on judges to make new laws. Hell we could save LOTS of money too by eliminating the legislature, and leave it to judges. My main beefs are that gay marriage is NOT a right, and that saying so does NOT mean that one is a bigot. It is too bad you do not think and have to resort to slander and bigotry to try and cow others into accepting YOUR pronouncements.

  80. Because something is not yet a legal right, does not mean that is should not be a right–a human right. For a long time, interracial marriages were not a right until the courts declared it so. Women voting should have been a right when the Constitution was first ratified, but wives were considered chattel. It took an Amendment to make that human right happen. A little matter of sexual equipment one is born with should not be an obstacle for those whose biological brains are wired up in reverse to be happy. I am optimistic that the courts will correct the oversight in the near future and declare the obscene law DOMA unconstitutional.

    Angry Mouse, aka Kaili Joy Gray, has an interesting opinion piece this morning on the Pope and his verbal dribblings.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/24/1173599/-Pope-gives-special-holiday-hate-speech-against-gays-because-it-s-Christmas

  81. “So, the question once again circles around to, what is wrong with dedicated, committed loving couples getting married with the rights and benefits provided ONLY to married couples by law and insurance companies?”

    It is to the “ONLY” portion that is questionable, by what criteria do you hold the identical “Loving & Committed Relationship” co-habit couple separate?
    Not by the word “married” that is clearly a separate but equal violation on the face.

    What unique rationale or state interest can you apply to the married couple that warrants the differential? “dedicated, committed loving couples” flat out doesn’t work.

  82. Wow. The Pope’s a public relations disaster! Could they have found a worse Pope? Hard to imagine.

    Not that there isn’t competition among his predecessors, of course.

    He points out that homosexuality is “a manipulation of nature”? Cutting down trees and sawing them into planks and building churches out of them is also a manipulation of nature, genius! Get a life!

    Where’s Sinead O’Connor when we need her?

  83. Earlier today I learned there are approximately 1,000 benefits available to officially married couples that are not available to persons who are not married. That includes civil unions which are not recognized in most states. How is it that people like my friend Dave who lived and loved his life partner of 41 years, but was not able to marry him until four years ago in their state of residence. Yet, when they crossed the state line, they were no longer recognized as legally married and could not claim marital benefits such as hospital visitation as next of kin, nor could they get spousal benefits from the IRS. When my wife passed away last year, Social Security sent me a small burial benefit. Dave cannot even get that.

    Bigots and homophobes can do all the logical gymnastics they want, but it will not change the fact that bigotry and discrimination is still enshrined in both religious and secular life as it was during the days before the 14th Amendment was passed, just in different form.

  84. Juris,

    “Ariel, I am sorry for your recent loss. Condolences.”

    Thank you, but we had been estranged for years. She and my brother crossed a line I considered unforgivable. I hadn’t spoken to either for over five years. Still, I appreciate the sentiment.

    ““I’m for civil-union but not same-sex marriage.” That may be the compromise. I am not opposed to that as long equal rights for each. But I am not gay either, and I can understand why any gay person takes offense to a different label.”

    I’ve been for some variation of civil union, and against “same-sex marriage”, for almost 40 years, though stupidly I thought it could be done by attorney and contract, which does not address the social restrictions nor SS or other entitlements. However, not all gays take offense to using another label, some actually recognize and accept the category error. It’s why I always throw Elton John into the mix, he does. “Marriage” is a term that has been only heterosexual; polygamy and polyandry are still heterosexual forms of marriage, using them for argument to justify homosexual marriage is making a category error.

    I’m an atheist. I’m not a second-class citizen, no matter the terms applied to me, most of which are wrong. I do not need to change the societal meaning of words to validate me.

    As for my step-brother’s revelation, yeah I wondered for years. As did my mother and my wife. I was ecstatic that he came out, but still told him I was against same-sex marriage, but whatever his state calls it do it if he really loves the guy. After being together a decade, he likely does.

    Now if you meant facetious about this: “As for the Pope, what you want him to throw out almost two millennium of reasoned Catholic doctrine for your sensibilities?” Not one iota. It’s would be the height of hubris to believe that the doctrine isn’t well reasoned, even while disagreeing with the underlying premises. I would leave me with only non-theists are reasoned.

  85. PatricParamedic,

    “That sounds as though you are of the mind, that the length of time a belief is held, validates the belief. I’m guessing you can see the logical flaw in your own observation.” from this ““As for the Pope, what you want him to throw out almost two millennium of reasoned Catholic doctrine for your sensibilities?”

    The emphasis wasn’t just years but reasoned years. I’m guessing you can see the logical flaw in your argument. From there, my point wasn’t this Pope, who is just continuing the same reasoning, but all the years preceding.

    The easiest way to sum up Catholic doctrine on this subject is likely “what about penis and vagina don’t you understand?” They see the sexes as given by G*d. No genders.

  86. PatricParamedic,
    As for you list of decisions up-holding same-sex marriage, I’ll go with the legislatures but not the courts. I’ll leave you to discern why, but I’ll give you a hint in that jurists do not represent the people, and often make even dumber decisions than legislatures. Heads are spinning…

    If the gay rights advocates had gone first for civil-union, it’d be a done deal.

  87. Vital Moors,

    Really “Is the pope gay? How else can we explain his virulent campaign against homosexuals?” Uh, because he like most Popes before think homosexuality is “unnatural” (that penis-vagina thingie).

    By the logic of your argument: given I’m against murder, lying, or thievery, I must be a murderer, a liar, and a thief. I know, sex is different. It’s always different.

  88. Gene H,

    Let me help you with this: “Almost all organized religion is predicated on some animals being more equal than others. How can you be in if there is no outside?” by way of “almost all human organizations, whatever the emphasis, are predicated on some animals being more equal than others.”

    “Animal Farm” was about an ideology, specifically Communism, but ultimately about the behavior of all human groups. Skewing it to religion misses the point badly.

  89. I just learned an interesting fact. I had known, for many years, that the Mormon Church considered all Blacks to have been, basically, “spawn of the devil” with some kind of complex and essentially incomprehensible explanation of how they suffered from the “Mark of Cain” after the famous fatal sibling rivalry between Cain and Abel. The punishments were that they would have black skin and a flat nose and they weren’t allowed to enter the Mormon Temple or become priests. The only way they could enter would be to be “sealed” as a permanent servant to a white Mormon. It was an extremely weird doctrine called the Doctrine of the Curse of Cain. Apparently, in 1978 President Jimmy Carter basically told the Church that so long as they practiced that discriminatory policy, the government was prepared to rescind their tax-free status, which would mean that Church businesses would no longer be tax-free and therefore the Church would lose billions of dollars per year. Suddenly the Church issued a declaration clearing Blacks of all disabilities within the religion, and they kept their tax-free status. They did not, however, explain the move or rescind the stuff they had published before about why it was Church policy. It had been put in place by Brigham Young himself. :twisted:

  90. PatricParamedic,

    ““Even though Catholic. All embraced his partner as meaningful to him.”
    And how exactly does an honorable Catholic square this “embracing” with Doctrine?”
    In the same way American Catholics use contraceptives, or Mormons drink coffee, or in my family, wine at dinner (three years in Europe, they succumbed, aren’t jack Mormons just horrible people?). S.I. Hayakawa gave a great quote on understanding words: “the word is not the thing”. He used the example of “ball”; try using that example on Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, or hell, Mother or Father. Only “True Believers” follow any religion or ideology to the letter.

    I do realize though that JFK was a papist puppet. He was a Catholic after all.

    Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor, but too often deserved.

  91. Hi, Malisha,

    The “mark of Cain” as to black skin has it’s origins in at least Syrian Christianity as well Armenian and did pass on to mainstream. It isn’t unique to Mormonism, so it wasn’t an “extremely weird doctrine only followed by Mormons” (you’ll find references throughout Christianity if you dig, it’s not something of which Christian sects are proud). The mark is actually a “mark, sign, tattoo” in Hebrew, but too many turned it into “darkened skin”. Certainly justified the Atlantic Slave Trade (before any of you go into Europe bashing, something I enjoy, the AST was much smaller than the ME slave trade).

    Next, up to 1978, blacks could be part of the lesser order Aaronic, but not the Melchizedek order, so they couldn’t be Elders. I couldn’t enter the more sacred areas of a Temple either as an Aaronic without a Melchizedek signing on, but neither I (and I’m white with a lot of NA but that’s okay in the Mormon Church) nor a black would be their slave by your implication. You’re mistaking level for color. They, black males, couldn’t hold power in the upper echelons of the Church when relegated to Aaronic and couldn’t enter the more sacred areas just as I couldn’t without Melchizedek imprimatur. That the Mormon Church is pragmatic, as it was in the 1890’s with polygamy so that Utah could be a state, I will give you.

    As an aside, if you think women don’t hold power in the Mormon Church, you miss the limitations of formal power and the extent of informal power.

    Finally, as for weird, let’s get to the basics of flesh-blood, wafer-wine? Christian mysticism is it’s most endearing feature of all the three Abrahamic religions.

  92. Vital Moors,

    “Reproduction among prosperous people has a demonstrable impact on the welfare of others: thanks to the depletion of resources and the effects of climate change, every child born to the rich deprives children elsewhere of the means of survival. In a world of diminishing assets, being gay is arguably more moral than being straight.”

    This is just a whole lot of stupid, and there is nowhere to begin on this. Really there isn’t. It’s a bunch of mindless current shibboleths thrown together. Depletion of resources? We’ve only scratched the surface. Climate change? Even if the man-made signal is forcing it, we would still be going through Climate Change, it’s natural because climate isn’t static, the Earth isn’t ever at equilibrium, only the acceleration is man-made. Every child born to the rich? You mean the nations with the lowest birth rates on the planet? You mean the pie is set, there is no more pie to be had, and every slice you have starves someone else? Quit eating, please, quit eating so others may live, please. Diminishing assets? Do you really understand how massive just the crust of this planet is, and we haven’t even scratched that? Tell the gays you don’t won’t them to have children, unless born by way of heterosexual unions. So much stupid in one comment.

    I bet you think breaking windows puts people to work, making a stronger economy.

    As for your anthropomorphizing of the animal world, you missed our two closest relatives: chimps, the violent relatives; bonobos, the sex-solves-a-lot relatives. “documents homosexuality in no fewer than 470 animal species. He shows how groups of manatees carouse in gay orgies; how male giraffes start “necking” and end up fornicating, how female Japanese macaques will pair off for weeks at a time, fondling each other and having sex.” So this is the majority of animal behavior? Showing that what we interpret as homosexual exists in other animal species is nice, but as far as I know it’s one big bisexual expression, that orientation we avoid because it screws with our binary thinking. No bisexual? Do bisexuals even exist? No submission-dominance, no estrus-hormonal drive, just heterosexual orientation or homosexual orientation?

    If the epigentics, yet to have enough verification if only too recent, or the genetic reason has weight, so what? It’s a very small percentage, in humans roughly 2%, and represents outlier behavior. I doubt that the overall mammalian behavior, neglecting submission-dominance, is any higher likely because whether epigenetic or genetic the ratio is likely somewhat fixed because we and they are mammals. There are only two sexes, the behavior is variation.

    Really, leave out the terns. They aren’t mammals.

    As for morality, if you want to argue homosexuality is more moral because of population control making that fixed pie available (really, stop eating you rich basturd -you live in the rich Western world after all- because you’re depriving kids in Korea) then heterosexuality is more moral to maintain entitlements because that pie isn’t fixed (tax base, guy, tax base). Hope you clean your plate.

    I do agree with the celibacy issue, it is unnatural, but so was Paul. Catholic priests molest (more males than females) than non-celibate clergy at about twice the rate, though non-celibate clergy go more for females. Google it, takes some creative searching,

  93. Ariel, I never imagined that the other religions did not have weird, bizarre, outrageous, discriminatory, misogynist, racist, and downright nasty stuff throughout. I just brought up one that I thought of for some reason at that point.

    There’d be a Helluva contest if we were to try to figure out the most weird, bizarre, outrageous, discriminatory, misogynist, racist or nasty religious doctrines; even the research would use up a coupla lifetimes.

  94. Hi, Malisha,

    “They did not, however, explain the move or rescind the stuff they had published before about why it was Church policy. It had been put in place by Brigham Young himself.” Sorry, I missed this, but they did. The change was done by revelation to the President, and it was rescinded. That books prior weren’t torn up was just logistics and inertia, like maintaining the KJV.

    The actual attribution is to Joseph Smith but admittedly by way of Brigham Young. It’s indeterminate as to whether JS practiced it, he was martyred only 17 years after the very beginning of the Church (hey, martyr is their term, I’m just showing a semblance of respect, and I mean it). Church doctrine is slow to evolve and it’s quite possible that JS made reference from which BY drew. I have to give great respect to BY, if not for longevity but for stamina.

    Really, it isn’t any different from a new Papal missive; a reinterpretation by the Bishops of the Episcopal church (one Bishop even called the Resurrection a metaphor, and I’m being nice); or anything Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, or post-Protestants have done. It’s just that there’s more prejudice in interpreting what Mormons do, as well that they are better comedians than Calvinists (I do like Calvinists about work and pride, they must have been reading the Bhagavad Gita).

  95. OS,
    You do realize that the bulk of the books Heinlein wrote were classified as “Juvenile” because that is the audience he wrote to for most of his career (Podkayne of Mars for example). I loved Heinlein as a kid, he was one of the Big Three, but quoting him settles nothing, as quoting Asimov or Clarke settles nothing. In fact, around here, quoting Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Nietzsche, Kant, or Sarte settles nothing. Great quotes though. TANSTAAFL should make stand for all ages to come. And I do like “The Green Hills of Earth” collection.

    Would H.L. Mencken quotes settle anything? Or W.C. Fields, such as “go away kid, ya bother me” or “A man’s got to believe in something. I believe I’ll have another drink” or even more apropos to these comments “”I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally.” If only the last were true, so simple it would be…after all you’d all recognize you’re prejudices.

    Moving on, OS, the miscegenation argument is a category error. It falls into the definition of heterosexual marriage (man-woman). It isn’t applicable, nor polygamy or polyandry, all of which fall under heterosexual. Nor is the civil-rights argument regarding blacks, their civil-rights were acknowledged in Plessy v Furgesson, by “separate but equal” though it actually meant “separate and unequal” in practice. Same-sex marriage is a category change and should be recognized as such and acknowledged as such, instead of the dishonesty of it’s no different.

    “Earlier today I learned there are approximately 1,000 benefits available to officially married couples that are not available to persons who are not married. That includes civil unions which are not recognized in most states.”
    For heterosexual couples there is no excuse, none, they can easily formalize their relationship and get those benefits. If they don’t, eff them, they chose not to and I have no sympathy or empathy. Not doing so is a choice, and we are all for choice, aren’t we? As adults, we chose.

    However, homosexual couples (lesbians are gay, but not all gays are lesbians, so homosexual, or LGBT is one letter redundant) haven’t had that choice, not that choice means right, but by my sense of equity should have that choice to formalize their union. It should be recognized in every state (realizing that the states decide by agreement to recognize the other state’s standards: driver’s licenses being one example, marriage or civil union another, under contention; CCP are problematic). You and I may argue terms, but civil-unions of homosexuals should be recognized with all privileges granted married heterosexuals. Notice my use of terms.

    Gene H.’s 14th Amendment argument just doesn’t cut it. There’s nothing in the original arguments for “same-sex marriage” as a 14th “due process”, nor in over one hundred years. Unless we want jurists as clergy, this societal change should be left to legislatures and the people. The Reconstruction Amendments were about race, specifically blacks, and slavery.

  96. Hi, Malisha,
    ” I never imagined that the other religions did not have weird.. I just brought up one that I thought of for some reason at that point.”

    Call that my sensitivity to being sporadically and loosely brought up in the Mormon Church. They are good people, but their archeology sucks. I have a knee-jerk response because I remember the anti-catholic bigotry when JFK was running. Bigotry has many arguments and many flavors. Still Mormons are better comedians than Calvinists.

    “There’d be a Helluva contest if we were to try to figure out the most weird, bizarre, outrageous, discriminatory, misogynist, racist or nasty religious doctrines; even the research would use up a coupla lifetimes.” If you’d include misandrist, you’ve got the whole human experience covered. Nothing wrong with bizarre or outrageous, it draws us out of our box. We’d be so 1950’s otherwise.

    Discriminatory? You grabbed your lover using eeney-miney-moe? We discriminate all the time in our private lives, only fools don’t. Personally, I think women of color beat white women, except those red-headed alabaster Irish, hands down in beauty. Period. No contest.

    My wife, however, is white. She’s Scot-Swede with NA. My discrimination isn’t just about physical beauty , but who the woman is in totality. Discrimination is all about judging worth, and each of us in our lives have to make that judgement to make our own lives worthwhile, worth living.

    I have had friends and lovers of all colors, all ideologies (the closest friend was a Wobblie) and religions. It’s not what you think, it’s how you think. I’ll discriminate for the latter always, seldom for the former. I can find agreement at some level with the how, but with the what it’s only if my what is their’s. As is so evident here.

    Discrimination is wrong when it’s basis is wrong, a superficial basis. It’s right otherwise. I’m not writing about legalities.

    We use the word discriminate poorly, like using decimate to mean exterminate. We loose by poor use.

  97. the antichrists will usurp the power of GOD.

    the people will be forced to accept the mark of the beast, (which has nothing to do with the hot one that got terminated) for the weak will be swooped up…

    once IT starts you will not stop the SECOND COMING. and all those who speak against GOD, will be judged accordingly.

    did anyone support the antichrists for the holidays.

    telling you to be prepared, was like telling the government, and the churches what to do.

    If you were GOD, why would you create a universe !
    why would you create man ? ? ?
    if you are gods children, not one of you has listened to god.
    not even the poop has listened!
    if you have any children and they do not listen to you, do you discipline them?
    but you all claim to know more than GOD and accept the beautiful ones because, you do not believe in the truth. you say that you won’t be here in thirty years.
    where will you be ?

    this is read by different countries and ministers. and they all deny THE BIBLE.
    ALL PREDICTED.
    you may create hell on earth if you don’t listen.
    the church will be put on trial !
    religions have failed you again. don’t think children can’t be judged at a young age for being in the christmas play. (now THE HOLY SPIRIT has to change HOLY diapers till easter)

    three things were said over four years ago:
    same sex marriage would be legal through out the World.
    abortions would be legal through out the World.
    to close every religion down so they would not fight with ME, and mislead the people against GOD.

  98. @ Ariel,

    What I was explaining to you was my use of the “Mormon theory of the inferiority of Blacks” as a comparison to what the Pope has been doing with his bully pulpit.

    Let me start by mentioning who “the Mormons” are in my experience. I am a Jew and I lived with my then husband (also a Jew) in a neighborhood where some Mormons lived a block away and were friendly and had lots of kids who were fun and smart and playful. As my kid grew to be best friends with their kids, I grew to be a welcomed “Auntie” in their house. My son is the only Jew I know who was ever “Best Man” at a Mormon wedding. These are wonderful folks. Their church, however, like all the churches, has behaved poorly, in my opinion. They’d be very hurt to hear me say this, so I don’t say it to them. They’re not likely to be blogging here, either (and they don’t know me as “Malisha,” a name I created for the Internet).

    I have known other Mormons, including Senator Harry Reid, and including a couple (wife is a lawyer, husband a psychologist) whom I consider free thinkers and intellectuals. But that’s just about my personal experience with some Mormons.

    In my opinion, the Mormon Church discriminates terribly against Blacks, against women, against many kinds of people. Here’s how I use the word “discriminate”: I use it as it has come into usage in common American English. Of course I discriminated in the sense of “choosing by means of comparison of various differences” when I chose a mate. (And I discriminated very poorly because I failed to discriminate against sadists, stupid people, and liars, all in one big mishtunk.) But we all use the word “discriminate” now to mean “to pre-judge people based upon stereotypes.”

    Thus, to identify “people with black skin and flat noses” as “descendants of a single bad person who was properly judged by God” as inherently bad and thus deserving of less good treatment than others is, in my book, discrimination.

    The Catholic Church has a long history of horrible, forcible, sadistic discrimination against many kinds of people. That’s history. The Pope’s conduct now is not a sudden new unprecedented behavior. The Jewish Orthodox establishment has even discriminated against its own in ways I find so abhorrent that I often find myself fighting my own at times unreasonable discrimination against the Orthodox. (Jews have no Pope so we don’t get this kind of on-high pronouncements that shock the whole world, of course; things are more subtle.) Some of the non-Catholic Christian clergy have come out with things so atrocious I keep getting the feeling that all shock has been used up and “Now I’ve heard everything,” but no, there’s always another one…

    Muslim Clerics from this tribe or that tribe will jump up from time to time making declarations and issuing Fatwahs that are just plain hair-raising sadistic lunacy. Nobody is immune, it seems, so long as we cling to the notion that there is a supergod who gives one guy or another guy the right and even responsibility to control the actions of a third person by divine authority. It means I, as a religious person, can always have a trump card and my saying, “God said so” is my trump card no matter what cards YOU may hold.

    My son, by the way, does a hilarious stand-up routine (perhaps cruel towards Mormons, some of whom he loves dearly; and perhaps cruel towards people with Tourette’s Syndrome) called “Mormon with Tourette’s giving testimony.

    RIght around the part where “I know this is the true church” comes in, he does a crescendo of graphic curses and the accompanying physiological movements in exactly the loud voice of the real illness. Not once have I failed to crack up in helpless laughter at this point; afterwards I always feel terribly guilty but so far have resisted going to confession.

    Ariel, I’m going straight to Hell, but not until I die.

  99. Malisha,
    “Ariel, I’m going straight to Hell, but not until I die.” That shove you’ll feel will be me impatiently behind. Mark Twain gave hell high marks..

    “But we all use the word “discriminate” now to mean “to pre-judge people based upon stereotypes.” Yes, the problem is we generate stereotypes to deal with the world. Stereotypes aren’t bad, bad stereotypes are bad. Discrimination isn’t bad, discriminating poorly is bad, as you well know. Mishtunk is a variation of Schtunk?

    I deplore good, meaningful words turned into shallow, unthinking shells of their real meaning. I still hate the use of decimate to mean exterminate, or discriminate as you gave. When lexicographers switched from descriptive and prescriptive, to only or predominately descriptive, the language and our thinking suffered.

    All the Christian sects have horrible histories if you want to emphasize that part, much as all human groups do horrible things while doing good things. I forget the term for fundamentalist Jews, but they aren’t nice people to others either. I always remember that when German Flagellants were fomenting blame and hatred against Jews for the Plague (roughly 1350, give or take some decades) it was a Catholic Pope that said stop, they die with us and are not the cause. Given European Jew-hatred, this was bold. It’s not the only example, just one that comes to mind.

    The Democrats have a horrible history regarding racism, KKK, and Jim Crow, and it can’t be laid solely at the feet of southern Democrats. The Klanbake of 1924 wasn’t just Southerners. The Republican party went from a strong supporter of racial equality to tepid if not against (depends on the emphasis of what racial equality entails, and this penchant, also a Democrat problem, for Law and Order, which is usually expressed against the poor and minorities).

    The issue of women in churches, in political movements, or under law in marriage is always thorny, especially with all the bigotry on both sides (a bigot being one who is “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” this from Merriam-Webster, I left of the “especially”) I dealt with a woman in one class at an Episcopal Church who maintained that women couldn’t own property during 19th Century America (single could, period, and starting in 1834 in Massachusetts, married women could, each state following suit over the course of of that century). She would have none of it; it disturbed her needed narrative of women as only victims.

    Mormons, like Protestants, Catholics, or Republicans and Democrats, vary from region to region. The Stake I attended, sparingly, had strong women who had power. Another one I went to in Illinois, I have no idea what I was thinking other than make Momma happy, was disturbing. Definite subjugation of women, with a dour, sullen, oppressive atmosphere. I have no doubt that Synagogues have that variance also

  100. Ariel, sure and so what.

    I can see you don’t like the way I use the word “discriminate” and also, so what.

    I’ve met a variety of violent hateful women; I’ve met a variety of violent, hateful men. There are all sorts of excuses for bad behavior. The Pope denouncing gays and the Mormons previously denouncing Blacks, and all the erudite renditions of earlier and subsequent denouncings notwithstanding, my general take on this is so what.

    As to the “needed narrative of women as only victims,” that’s counter-productive. There are times, and unfortunately, PLENTY OF TIMES, when people being victimized don’t feel they have the right to complain about the victimization and the blowback can be like the A-Bomb. That’s a piggy-back atrocity in my opinion; happens every damn day.

    If people are often victimized, and one of them claims that she is being victimized, and she is told that her conduct is wrongful somehow because she is trying to “rely on a theory of victimization,” where is the lie being born? Was she somehow NOT victimized because we don’t like to think that she joins a group too large for comfort?

    The reality of this is that there are many, many abuser techniques in use all over the world. One of the most efficient abuser techniques is to project the abuse onto the victim and turn the tables. Sociopaths are so good at it that they live by it and they get people running around going “boo hoo boo hoo look what happened to the poor blameless victim” and they out-victim everybody.

    I really don’t care if some woman somewhere got the facts wrong about when or how women in Massachusetts could own property. She was generally right about the property and liberty rights of women in the 1800s being unequal to the property and liberty rights of men in that same period of time, was she not? If you want to say her wrongness about this alleged fact (I have not checked it) means she was wrong in her assumptions about the victimization of women in American history in general, you’ve gone way way too far with a fact and with a single woman’s error about a single fact.

    There are enough facts in one lifetime to convince you, or me, or anybody of many wrong theories. You won’t know anybody else’s if you live to be 100.

    Which I hope you do. Peace of the season upon you.

  101. Hi, Malisha,

    No, it isn’t the way that you use it, as that is one meaning, it’s when used thinking that is the only meaning and missing the deeper and broader meaning of the word. Bigot has the same problem, which is why I always leave off the “especially” portion of the usual definition. We should discriminate, even judge (since to discriminate is to judge), but never be a bigot in doing so.

    In my illustration of that one woman (not the only one I’ve met, by far), she was a bigot. She maintained obstinately, and irrationally, that women couldn’t own property while the history is something different. It was emotionally necessary for her to continue her narrative where she could be a victim, though she never suffered that victimization, but just by being a member of the group. BTW, as was the norm at this Episcopal Church, she was quite wealthy and quite privileged, yet still a victim of a victimization she never suffered. Any other sufferings aren’t pertinent, as our discussion was only on that one point of property.

    She didn’t get it wrong, she had no understanding of the history. Couldn’t accept the history, and wrapped herself in victimhood while never suffering that victimhood. She wasn’t generally right, she was plain wrong. One, women did have property rights as single women, something she could neither accept nor understand, and two, the whole movement in the 19th Century by men was to give married women property rights.

    “Mormons previously denouncing Blacks”, no they restricted male blacks to the lower priesthood. They repressed them yes, but denounce is too strong a word. As I pointed out, much earlier Christian groups consider “blackness” as the Mark of Cain. If Mormonism had denounced, then no Aaronic blacks whatsoever. The Mormon Church repressed by a physical characteristic.

    The Catholic Church is denouncing a behavior. Whether a behavior is intrinsic, genetics or epigenetics, it’s still a behavior. I don’t agree with them, it deserves at the least benign tolerance if not embracing, especially by a secular government, but still that Church is making a stand on a behavior. The Mormon Church, while just repressing, was much worse as it used a physical characteristic. The Catholic Church also denounces heterosexual behavior, especially normal male heterosexual behavior. Monogamy isn’t normal male heterosexual behavior, it’s a societal constraint that men try to adhere to over economics as well ideals. I am in no way saying there aren’t monogamous men, they just aren’t the bulk. I’m monogamous, an outlier, but I like ideals so it’s easy though not always satisfying. Women of course as a group embrace that restriction, while breaking it for reasons not a man’s.

    Women hold up the social order, or pecking order, more than men; it’s why the 19th Century concept of women as the civilizers of men and women, certainly not a misogynist concept. What it missed, and what schools are seeing today, is that it is more a pecking order that is maintained with relentless and vicious enthusiasm on other women. Women, girls, use social media today to continue that need to establish order. Been through it in elementary school, middle school, and HS. One thing I will give school administrators, over society in general, is they don’t start by making excuses, infantilizing women, in these circumstances. Through 5 schools, the comments by administrators has been they’d rather deal with boys as the violence is straight forward, seldom as relentless or vile as the girls.

    My great-grandmother was NA, my grandfather and my mother would also qualify, I am at the cusp. I could go on about how “my group” suffered horrors even greater than any American woman not NA, but I suffered none of that. My victimhood is my suffering in my lifetime. I’m a white male, by identification, so I’ve had no suffering by definition. My cheekbones are quite high and pronounced, my skin quite red-brown, though lightened because I avoid the sun, and my hair was black when younger. My mother and I had to speak at every border stop. Victims.

    “One of the most efficient abuser techniques is to project the abuse onto the victim and turn the tables”, absolutely, but claiming victimhood when you haven’t experienced that particular circumstance might also be in the DSM. Thank you for using “sociopath” to justify people claiming victim status when they were never victims of that circumstance. Men or women that claim victimhood over what their ancestors suffered qualify. People as tools.

    Dinner’s here, so I must go. However, living to a 100 years is a wish of pain and poverty. We spend $15,000 to $20,000 a year on medical bills. Our stocks are gone, and our property is next, there is no retirement. I only hope to send my children off well. A beneficient wish by you, yes, but my circumstance is a twist on your ” You won’t know anybody else’s if you live to be 100″. Perhaps you do not know enough others. I would never wish to others what you did, as I know some would only suffer.

    You have no idea of my breadth in my lifetime; from broken homes, to poverty, to so many deaths. None. Nor I you, which is always my underlying reservation in judging people I don’t know face to face.

    I do accept the good wishes as intended by you, and as you intended. Peace be unto you.

  102. Behaviour and the regulation of:

    Romer: “when homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.”

    Or: when the conduct of the married couple who co-habits with another or others is made criminal by the law of the State that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject free individuals to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.”

    When behaviour no longer matters, no behaviour can be held to fault

  103. nick spinelli “Pedophile priest are the threat.”

    The overwhelming majority of the kids that were molested in church were done so by homosexual priests.

  104. and Hubert where is your proof for that? (He wrote: The overwhelming majority of the kids that were molested in church were done so by homosexual priests.)

  105. I saw the studies that said that homosexuals do NOT molest children at all. Of course, they state that any same sex pedophiles are NOT homosexual, but are child molestors. So that makes it pretty hard for homosexuals to ever be classed as pedophiles since homosexuals are by definition excluded from child molestors.

  106. ARE:
    Child molesters and pedophiles come in both gay and straight, as well as male and female. I have come to be familiar with all kinds in my line of work.

    Don’t know where you got your information, but if it was passed off as science, then it is junk science.

  107. Glad to hear that. I read one of those studies in a link on Hufpost in which the author stated that gays are not child molestors at all.

  108. Monte, you put the cart before the horse. Societal proscription came first. No more needs to be said.

    leejcarrol, because the far majority of child molestation in the Catholic Church was male on male. However we twist it, it’s still homosexual.

    OS, thank you for a moment of clarity by this “Child molesters and pedophiles come in both gay and straight, as well as male and female. I have come to be familiar with all kinds in my line of work.” Thanks for the distinction too of CMs versus pedophiles, the latter having this inexplicable need for sex with prepubescent children. Both sexes, and all orientations, have these subsets. Women are much less likely to be pedophiles, but rise in CM while still being less than men. If we go across cultures, ME women do a lot more of what we would call pedophilia but the purpose may be different.

    randyjet, yeah, you got pure BS in that Huffpost. It’s likely they defined pedophilia and CM in a way that gays couldn’t be either. I see the same, too often, with child abuse and DV in the societal media. Non-sexual child abuse is about 1.75 times more likely done by mothers than fathers and DV is about equal unless you define it by outcome (women use fists and weapons poorly, men use fists better). If you make excuses for either sex, you only infantilize that sex. Either adult or not.

  109. Ariel, thanks for your well wishes and I’m sorry you didn’t feel mine to be gratifying but, as you point out, we don’t know each other.

    I can’t comment on your suffering. I will chime in that the reason women are “enforcers” or as you describe them, the “civilizers” into an abusive culture, is that they have often adopted the role of the “good girl” which is also the role of the “good subject” which is a way of achieving “goodness.” It is a trap. But our culture sets these traps and few can avoid them forever.

    I’m glad you also did not try to comment on my suffering. It’s a damn shame and that’s about all it is, and I have survived it so far, and am about to go have a sandwich which will mean I’ll survive it even further!

    Be well.

  110. Malisha,

    I took your wishes, however harsh I responded, as I said “I do accept the good wishes as intended by you, and as you intended. Peace be unto you.”

    We all have our tragedies, our sufferings. Some more, some less. I consider all mine just life, because it is my life. I can’t judge the worth of yours, because yours is your life.

    Mine? I was raised by paternal grand-parents as guardians, but paternal great-grandparents and uncles played as big a part (I’m most partial and most effected by my great-grandmother, the reason for my interest in early 20th Century social movements and history; a 5’8” woman with a figure far, far from boyish, intellectual, and in her early 20’s in 1920, a poor fit by the times, and I heard a lot about those times). Lost enough family by the time I was 15 and a half that I was sent to the other side of the family, and not a good fit. I went to seven different schools to reach graduation. So what? Bombs didn’t drop on my house…had they, it would still be just my life.

    However, if either us of claim the sufferings of another as ours, shame on us.

    ” I will chime in that the reason women are “enforcers” or as you describe them, the “civilizers” into an abusive culture, is that they have often adopted the role of the “good girl” which is also the role of the “good subject” which is a way of achieving “goodness.” It is a trap. But our culture sets these traps and few can avoid them forever.” But, Malisha, there are traps for men too, enforced by both sexes. It’s all part of the same, the shame is when either sex is too self-absorbed or dull to realize the others trap.

    I’ll give you a scenario any woman could identify with and certainly take action on. You’re in a fast-food restaurant in the Verde Valley, though any locale would do, and in the children’s area where exits are padlocked for the safety of the children. Your husband comes in with the trays of food, and at the same time says “there was a guy at the counter that got so mad he threatened to kill the manager and everyone else”. You ask, as the dutiful wife “where’d he go?”, and get “he went to his car”. So, you send your husband through the main dining area to the exit opposite where the schmuck went with “I’ll hand you our children” over the block wall. You do, along with another wife’s children, and tell your husband to get as far away with the children as he possibly can. After that, you and the other wife hunker down at the door to the main-dining room, prepared to charge and die if need be to stop the gunman. Not all women are prepared to do this, but most are. After all, a husband that hides behind his wife when violence is threatened is doing what is expected, but a wife that hides behind her husband is a yellow coward. We all have our traps.

    You know if this world had singled out “German, English, Scot-Irish, French, Native American with a touch of Italian” men for oppression, repression, even slavery, before I was born or a child in elementary school, I just couldn’t think of myself as a victim. Even if the oppression and repression lingered. You can try like hell to make me a second-class citizen, but I’m not and I won’t let you make me.

  111. “Vital Moors, also whales.” Not to mention porpoises and dolphins. May be some octopi in there if we need invertebrates too. A see a study needed…

    The problem is always with words, natural and anthropomorphization, for example. Comparing with others, using the older KPCOFGS, is fraught with trouble especially by the latter word starting with “a”.

    Dimorphism is natural, but some species can actually change sex by demand, humans can’t. So one part natural shot to hell.

    Down’s Syndrome is natural. Cleft palate is natural. Pseudohermaphroditism is natural. Autism may be. Scoliosis is natural. (about 2 to 3% of children need medical attention because of it, but 10% have it).

    I doubt you’d call any of these “natural”, as I did, or argue about how they exist in other species. You’d likely call them “naturally-occurring” without calling them natural, given the connotative difference. You would need to make some distinction.

    Only in human sexuality do we need to go to such great lengths to accept the variance of other humans. Why do you have to anthropormorphize other species to feel comfortable with homosexuality? What would you do if no other mammalian species, or for god’s sake no other class, exhibited what you could interpret as homosexual? Be still? Try something else? Punt?

    WTF does any of this have to do with tolerating or accepting homosexuality, especially within a secular government framework? Note: I’m still against same-sex marriage as a category error, but for civil-union with full government privileges and/or entitlements (rights don’t really apply here).

    If you’ve got to go to other species to justify to yourselves variance in human sexuality, just let it all go and embrace bonobo sexuality. They’ve got it all down right, less aggression than chimps or humans, and a lot more play. Oh, wait, that’s not human.

    As far convincing the ignorant Pope, you know the guy that speaks/reads 5 or more languages, has an education in Classical History, and more, that would likely give a PhD or two, or some MAs with a PhD, he isn’t listening. He’s a buffoon. I saw it when I was an Engineering student. Not one of the humanities professors I knew could even solve a simple mass transfer equation. Ignorant buffoons. What do you do…

Comments are closed.