Roughly 15 years ago, I wrote about the collision between anti-discrimination laws and the free exercise of religion. I have been critical of the premise of the use of the tax code to effectively punish organizations that do not comport with the IRS’s view of good public policy. Now, presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke has fulfilled the prediction in the piece by promising to strip religious organizations of the tax exemption if they do not recognize same-sex marriage.
O’Rourke was asked by CNN’s Don Lemon “Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities – should they lose their tax exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?”
O’Rourke answered “yes” to the wild approval of the crowd. He added:
“There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone, or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. So as president we’re going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing on the rights of our fellow Americans.”
The use of the tax code to enforce such values is not new to Beto O’Rourke who recently promised also to revoke the NRA’s tax exempt status.
The use of the tax code to enforce such values was endorsed by the Supreme Court in the 1983 case of Bob Jones University v. United States. The Court ruled that revoking the tax exempt status of the university (which followed discriminatory principles) did not violate the First Amendment. While I found the policy of Bob Jone University deeply offensive, there remained the threshold free speech and free exercise questions. In 2005, I wrote about this case and the prospect of being used in this way:
“The debate over same-sex marriage represents a coalescing of rights of free exercise, free speech, and expressive association. With the exception of abortion, same-sex marriage is almost unique in blurring neat divisions between these rights. Many organizations attract members with their commitment to certain fundamental matters of faith or morals, including a rejection of same-sex marriage or homosexuality. It is rather artificial to tell such groups that they can condemn homosexuality as long as they are willing to hire homosexuals as a part of that mission. It is equally disingenuous to suggest that denial of such things as tax exemption does not constitute a content-based punishment for religious views. . . . The denial of tax-exempt status presents a particularly serious threat to these organizations and puts them at a comparative disadvantage to groups with contrary views.”
The fact that O’Rourke’s proposal received such enthusiastic support shows the danger of using the tax code to enforce majoritarian values. I have long proposed a blanket guarantee of tax exemption for non-for-profit organizations or no exemption for any organizations. What I find troubling is the use of the tax code for content-based discrimination between organizations.
168 thoughts on “O’Rourke Pledges To Strip Religious Organizations Of Tax Exemption If They Do Not Support Same-Sex Marriage”
Goes to show in semi living proof why boy beto should be rarely seen and never heard. definitely proved he is an Anti Constitutionalist besides taking allegiance to a foreign ideology
The federal government shall usurp the normal function of the state; the state the function of the city; the city the function of the neighborhood; the neighborhood the function of the family.
The entire issue is caused by government interference in personal relationships. There should be no government marriage licenses nor special rights and privileges based on a relationship. Treat everyone equally as individuals. Personal relationships between adults based upon ones own beliefs with no government interference would be the correct policy in a free society.
There should be no government marriage licenses nor special rights and privileges based on a relationship. Treat everyone equally as individuals.
Someone once referred to libertarianism as ‘applied autism’. Libertarians can’t help themselves and prove the point more often than not.
Families are essential elements of every social organization that has ever existed. Of course there should be legal definitions of participants with responsibilities and rights.
Maybe a good title for this would be: “The Normalization of Homosexuality Instigated by Politicians.”
touch screen problems : You think you could change which sex turns you on’ I couldn’t.
I am amazed (not really) that those who claim sexual orientation is ABSOLUTELY 100% genetic bristle at the suggestion that IQ and intelligence has ANY genetic component, that humans are basically “blank slates” when it comes to that characteristic.
I think expecting intellectual consistency from leftists is expecting too much.
I’m ranting, but I really would like to see a logistical strategic-thinking democract who is more centrist and believes in the compromise between business and the environment.
I see a lot of identity politics, save the environment above all else, let your government take more control of your life.
It’s a strange place for someone who was on board the Democratic train when I was younger..
I’m not so sure anymore.
It’s like who’s left over there?
OT: Why would he not want to be called Robert? Robert is a very nice strong name. Last name, O’Rouke.
I guess he is entitled to be called whatever he wants, but he looks Irish. His choice.
Also, please stop speaking Spanish, Beto. You sound ridiculous. Your accent is way off.
I live with Spanish speakers, one who is from El Paso, and I don’t even attempt Spanish around them, just comes off like a ‘try hard’ move.
And of course, I sound way off speaking it as well…choppy, accent wrong. It’s fun to practice, but not full blown fluent. I wouldn’t try to speak it on stage, or pass myself off as fluent.
It’s the same way the non English speaker sounds speaking English, choppy, accent off, missing words sometimes.
I appauld the attempt though…most ppl would/do, and probably some out there appreciate it…but you won’t be winning any elections bc of it.
I think someone mentioned You are the dad at the Mexican restaurant embarassing your kids. Haha. You seem like a nice guy, a caring, empathic type…someine I would want to get to know and be friends with….but not for President…hrrrmmm.
You don’t really fit the President Bill to me…and you’re leaning to left for a lot of us center left/center right swing voters…
Wasn’t Starbucks Howard Schultz going to throw his name in the hat? He is obvious not a career public servant, but neither is Trump.
Where are the business left leaning folks who like the environment, want to save the ocean, but still believe in business???
if you’r around regular folks and need to speak Spanish, just do it and don’t worry. same thing any other language. the more you speak them the better for your own skills and the less you will care about reactions.
I was in paris once doing a lot “parlaying” with the Algerians who populate certain neighborhoods where I found my cheap hotel and most of them hardly knew any english anyhow. i didn’t meet any resistance to my linguistic imperfections until a French sod taking my order in a cafe in the il de la cite replied to my french in english. he lost his tip.
i have been accused of being a cunning linguist more than once, but, as they say, practice makes perfect
Beta Male O’Rourke is desperate. His candidacy, like several other Democrats is hopelessly irrelevant. He is trying to be heard above the noise created by the “More Socialist than Thou” club. Given the silliness being spewed by Occasional Cortex and heralded by Princess Spreading Bull, the Dems will be advocating Marxism by election day.
The Dems are so unhinged that not even they can turn back the madness they created. Americans cant even breathe without being anxious on who will be offended by their breathing.
Trump will win 2020 because Americans are disgusted with leftists Democrat doublespeak.
“Pointing a finger gun lands 12-year-old Johnson County student in handcuffs”
A 12-year-old Overland Park girl formed a gun with her fingers, pointed at four of her Westridge Middle School classmates one at a time, and then turned the pretend weapon toward herself.
Police hauled her out of school in handcuffs, arrested her and charged the child with a felony for threatening.
Shawnee Mission school officials said they could not discuss the case, citing privacy laws, but did say it wasn’t the district that arrested the child.
“We don’t do that,” said spokesman David Smith. “That is not our job.” He said the role of the district police is “not to enforce the law but to keep kids and adults safe.”
A person familiar with a more detailed incident report spoke to The Star on condition of anonymity. The person said that during a class discussion, another student asked the girl, if she could kill five people in the class, who would they be? In response, the girl allegedly pointed her finger pistol — like the ones many children use playing cops and robbers.
Sure Beta is desperate, but that is not the point. Statements such as this moves the overton window. Don’t be surprised if Creepy Joe or Pocahontas picks this up in their race to the left.
The essence of a political speech:
Politician: “I’m going to take away money and freedom from millions of Americans.”
Crowd: “We love you.”
P.S. I loved your photos last weekend of the closed state park. Beautiful, but kind of sad, too.
Everybody commands equal time:
On the occasion of the canonization of John Henry Newman by Pope Francis today as one of the newest of 5 Catholic Saints, the words of the Holy Father in his sermon are very appropriate for us all. Enjoy
Kindly lights in gloomy world: Pope declares five new saints
“Like those lepers,” Pope Francis said, “we, too, need healing, each one of us. We need to be healed of our lack of confidence in ourselves, in life, in the future; we need to be healed of our fears and the vices that enslave us, of our introversion, our addictions and our attachment to games, money, television, mobile phones, to what other people think.”
Poem by John Henry Newman:
Lead, kindly Light, amid th’ encircling gloom,
Lead Thou me on;
The night is dark, and I am far from home,
Lead Thou me on;
Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for me.
I was not ever thus, nor prayed that Thou
Shouldst lead me on;
I loved to choose and see my path, but now
Lead Thou me on;
I loved the garish day, and spite of fears,
Pride ruled my will; remember not past years.
So long Thy pow’r has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
O’er moor and fen, o’er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile.
Saint John Henry Newman, pray for us!
Beautiful ceremony of the canonization of five new Saints today by Pope Francis.
Canonization went purely political when Mother Theresa got “fast-tracked” with a beatification “miracle” that the treating physician said was nothing of the kind. Saints like most mortals have feet of clay.
“Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, a doctor who said he had treated Ms. Besra, said in a telephone interview on Sunday that medicines he prescribed had eliminated the tumor. He also said it was a cyst caused by tuberculosis, not a cancerous tumor. The Vatican team that traveled to India and certified Ms. Besra’s account, he added, never made contact with him.
”It was not a miracle,” he said. ”She took medicines for nine months to one year.”
Christopher Hitchens, is that you?
Let it be known that Mespo has had a metanoia from being a Jerome Biblical Commentary and St Augustine aficionado to running to Peter Shill’s sacred text, New York Times, to teech da truff!
Mother Teresa was a profoundly charitable woman known globally as an Icon of Christ and living holiness, miracles in themselves.
Shame on you for reaching for the gutter. Paul Schulte, Nutchacha, Ynot, yes….but you?
Get thee to the Confessional this Saturday
Now, for the rest of the story….
The Miracles That Made Mother Teresa a Saint
The canonization of Mother Teresa on Sept. 4 marks the end of one of the faster causes of canonization in modern times. This is not surprising, given the wide acclaim among the faithful at the time of her passing, on Sept. 5, 1997, that she be proclaimed a saint immediately.
Pope St. John Paul II waived the normally mandatory five-year waiting period to start a cause, but the subsequent process was still very carefully followed, according to the Church’s regulations. That included validating two miracles: one for the beatification and another for canonization.
The diocesan inquiry (the first key step in the process) began in 1999, and the postulator for the cause, Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, a Missionaries of Charity priest, said at the time, “The five-year rule is to ensure that there is a genuine reputation for holiness among the people and that there is not just passing enthusiasm soon after a person dies. But in Mother’s case, there was no need to wait, as her holiness was a matter of worldwide belief.”
Within days of Mother Teresa’s death, possible miracles were reported around the globe. As with all such claims, the Church launched comprehensive and meticulous investigations.
The importance of these rules was reiterated by the postulator: “Some people asked why we needed a process at all, given that it would have been much more surprising if a negative decision had been given. But I see the great value of having the process — and we did the whole process. We did not just do the minimum to say that we had done it — we did a well-done process, which was necessary for a major figure like Mother Teresa. And now we have the material for a much deeper understanding of Mother Teresa, which would likely not have been the case otherwise.”
In the end, two miracles were approved.
The first took place in West Bengal, India, and involved the healing of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, whose abdominal tumor was so severe that her doctors abandoned hope of saving her. Taken into the care of the Missionaries of Charity, she continued to decline and endured such agony from the tumor that she could no longer sleep. On the one-year anniversary of Mother’s passing, the sisters at the home placed a Miraculous Medal that had been touched to the body of Mother Teresa on Besra’s stomach. The suffering woman fell asleep, and when she woke up, her pain was gone. Doctors examined her and found the reason why: The tumor had disappeared completely.
A board of medical specialists worked with the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to study the alleged miracle. After assessing the records and interviewing the medical staff involved, the committee determined that the healing was medically inexplicable. Pope John Paul approved the miracle on Dec. 20, 2002, barely five years after Teresa’s death.
The second miracle took place in December 2008 in Brazil. Marcilio Haddad Andrino, a now-42-year-old mechanical engineer from Santos, Brazil, struggled with a bacterial infection in the brain that caused severe brain abscesses and agonizing head pain. A priest friend encouraged the recently married young man and his wife, Fernanda Nascimento Rocha, to pray for Mother Teresa’s help. Andrino, however, slipped into a coma as treatments failed, and while Rocha prayed, he was taken in for last-ditch surgery. When the surgeon entered the operating room, he found Andrino awake and asking him what was going on.
Andrino made a full recovery, and the couple went on to have two children, even though it was deemed by doctors to be a near medical impossibility. Father Kolodiejchuk referred to their children as a second miracle.
How the healing was actually reported was also rather miraculous.
In an interview with the Register in December 2015, Father Kolodiejchuk explained why there was a delay between 2008 and 2015. “The miracle happened in 2008,” he said, “but we didn’t hear about it till 2013. The doctor [neurosurgeon] was not Catholic. Somehow, after the Pope’s [Pope Francis] visit there [to Brazil], it triggered him to say something to one of the priests of Santos, and that news eventually made its way to myself and the postulation office. That started the chain of events.”
In September 2015, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints accepted the findings of the medical commission and presented the report to Pope Francis for his final approval. On Dec. 17, the Holy Father officially recognized the miracle that was needed for Mother Teresa to be canonized.
The time lapse between the miracle and its reporting was itself rather providential. How appropriate it is that Mother Teresa’s canonization should be held during the Year of Mercy, something that Pope Francis had publicly hoped would happen.
As Father Kolodiejchuk told the Register, “Pope Francis wants the Jubilee of Mercy and wants works of mercy showing. He insists we receive mercy and we must show mercy, and the spiritual and corporal works of mercy are the exact apostolate we do. Mother would be a good patron saint for the workers of mercy and the example of exactly what Pope Francis is talking about.
“Anyone can imitate and do the same kind of actions in your own home, your own parish. Maybe help a soup kitchen. Some saints are to admire; some saints are to also imitate. Mother Teresa is one of those who are imitable. We could do those things — small things, humble works.”
Matthew Bunson is a Register senior editor.
last time i went to confession the priest told me to “just hit the major points” because he was in a hurry. I decided after that I would have to wait a while and then count my sins in exponentials for priestly convenience. it’s been few years now and I seem to have lost count, anyways!
“The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and the skulls of bishops are lamposts lighting the way” (attributed to St John Golden-Mouthed)
did anybody elevated GK Chesterton? no, of course not. look to why and you will see Mespo’s allegation about politicization receiving further support
they apparently never read John Golden-Mouthed’s homilies.
of course one might assume that political concerns have always been strong in the process and the contemporary times are no different.
today St Boniface would be an offender against both cultural diversity and the environment all at once for chopping down Thor’s oak tree to defy the heathens
Estovir – an article from the gutter on Mother Teresa
Lead Kindly, Light…….a wonderful old 19th century hymn.
Ah, Robert Francis O’Rourke,a fine Irish Catholic.
WAREHOUSE ON STATEN ISLAND HOUSES ICONS..
THAT FORMERLY ADORNED CATHOLIC CHURCHES
Unless the Catholic Church enters the 21st Century soon, its future could be in warehouses storing the beautiful art that used to make the church special.
Six years ago the New York Times ran this piece concerning just such a warehouse on Staten Island. Said warehouse stores countless art pieces from closed Catholic churches in the New York diocese. It would be heartbreaking if these warehouses become the churches only future.
Anon1, supposedly Jesus had a relationship with Mary Magdeline. Mary, Jesus mother at least lived with Joseph, even if they weren’t married. The reason the church doesn’t want priest to marry is because unlike nuns, at least Parrish priest do not take a vow of poverty. If a priest inherits assets from family, when he dies the church inherits it. If he were married, his wife would. The church has to get over this.
I am fine with whatever the Catholic church believes and practices within the law.
What in the h@ll does this mean? Sounds magnanimous but likely isn’t. Let’s try this logic…since homosexual “marriage” is the law of the land and the “bigoted” Catholic church doesn’t support it, ergo, they lose certain rights since they are “outside the law”
Is that an accurate elaboration of the above statement?
this is old hat. In Europe they already persecute Christians who quote Scripture against sodomites and I think Canada too. Turley has mentioned that in the past but it escaped him in this article. recent episode from Finland:
HEY GUYS WANT TO KNOW SOMETHING FUNNY?
THE EVIL ATHEIST CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY IN THE PRC DOESN’T RECOGNIZE “GAY MARRIAGE”
perhaps they decided the nation as a whole was more important than the individual.
see, that doesn’t always lead to the wrong result, contrary to what we’ve been taught.
I have no clue where you came by this stew of fictions.
Eastern rite Catholic priests can marry. I had a priest in high school with a family who had converted from Episcopalianism
The matter is not dogmatic it is administrative. Since the Gregorian reforms, this innovation has benefitted the Church greatly. however much it has lead to a lot of bad appples entering the barrell. We see now in detail how basically, they don’t care.
It benefits the Church to require their priests to be slaves to the Church. It’s made the Western Church very rich and powerful for sure.
You can see in Orthodox Christian nations like Greece or Russia or Serbia that the Church is closer to the people.
Nonetheless, the internal organization of the Roman Catholic Church remains incredibly impressive– taken from a strictly secular viewpoint.
For once Hill I agree with you. The church should allow priest to marry and allow women to become priest. I’ve been saying this for quit a few years now.
The church should allow priest to marry and allow women to become priest. I’ve been saying this for quit a few years now.
So, we all have religious freedom as long as it is government-approved? Seems contradictory to the Constitution.
I’ve noticed that Leftists have persecuted conservative Christians who take a Biblical view of same sex marriage. For some strange reason, they have not addressed that Muslims hold stricter views on the subject.
Leftists tread softly around Muslims because if not, some adherent of the “religion of peace” will do something very nasty as a result. I do not expect Muslims to suffer any loss of tax exemption. Don’t worry, leftists will come up with some grounds to justify it.
Tax Exemption Should Be Stripped From Churches..
Prohibiting Married Men And Women In Clergy
We have long-since reached the point where no corporation or government agency can prohibit women from serving in management. Therefore there is no excuse for any church receiving Tax Exempt Status to prohibit women from serving as priests, pastors or Rabbis. The prohibition of married men from the priesthood is equally ridiculous.
The Internal Revenue Service would be doing the Catholic Church a major favor by threatening to revoke Tax Exempt Status if the church refuses to comply with hiring guidelines that have been common place for almost 50 years. The Catholic Church is on the road to oblivion if it maintains its ‘Celibate Male-Only’ requirements for the priesthood. The Catholic Church will never survive this century with this archaic policy.
Even mainstream denominations that allow married men and women to serve as clergy are challenged by current trends. Regular church attendance is no longer routine in the western world. Church attendance dates to a time when people had no ‘entertainment options’ for Sunday. Just 50 years ago TV programming was scarce Sunday mornings.
Therefore the Catholic Church no longer has the ‘luxury’ of closing the priesthood to only celibate-males. What’s more the endless wave of sex scandals involving priests is a wake-up call that’s been ignored far too long. Obviously in this century few men with the talent to be fine priests would care to associate with such a sullied brotherhood. Sadly the term ‘Catholic Priest’ has become shorthand for ‘dysfunctional’.
The Catholic Church must open the priesthood to any man or woman with the aptitude to serve. The church has to put as much distance as possible between itself and the scandals. Not only is this change essential, but this change alone won’t guarantee the church’s survival. As noted, all church’s are now challenged regarding attendance. But the Catholic Church in particular cannot possibly hope to survive on its current course.
If you’re going to say something inane, could you at least be concise?
Tabby, what could be more inane than the Catholic Church insisting it has no problem and continuing on the road to oblivion? This charade has gone on far, far too long.
ha ha the Catholic Church is richer than ever and Western governments have held sway inside its business since Vat 2. Peter, you didn’t get the memo.
They’re holding on to celibacy mostly because they need “made men” to run their business. That’s what the mafia calls the key operators. In law they’re called partners. The army calls them “commissioned officers.” all hierarchical organizations depend on such distinctions to operate successfully.
It’s got very little to do with sex on any level anymore. Least of all “gender relations.”
It is not the government’s purview.
By definition, religions are discriminatory. Closed communions only allow those who have satisfied certain requirements in the faith to receive communion. Mosques require men and women to sit separately.
Whether or not any of us think these changes would be a good idea is irrelevant. The government may not have a state religion. Setting requirements for religion is similar to a state religion with multiple denominations. It’s for their own good are famous last words.
It must not do whatever you say. It is under its own control. They aren’t paying attention to you, or pretty much anybody else either. We might as well be chattering on the internet under fake names.
Oh ha of course we are.
But tell them in person that priests should be able to marry and you will be given that look like you’re a bad guy.
I figured out pretty early on not to start in on the homosexual issue because well, it’s always a question mark who you’re talking to at the time. This has some strange relationship to the issue of marriage! I’m too dumb to figure it out.
Now of some feminist church lady busybody says women should be ordained, they’ll kiss her fanny and be careful.
This tells you who’s driving the car in the West now. The pantsuit mafia and their lackeys.
It would be enough to strip them of their tax exemption when they enter into the political sphere. If they stay in their own lane, they should be able to preach what they believe. The IRS already has plenty of legit reasons to dump many “churches” from the exempt roles.
It would be enough to strip them of their tax exemption when they enter into the political sphere. If they stay in their own lane, they should be able to preach what they believe.
IE, the Church must depart any sphere the state chooses to enter.
that’s the lesson of every contemporary “revolution” alike. it’s built into the US constitution too. all their privileges could be stripped away so long as they stripped them away from every other religious organization too. the bare conceptual minimum of the Establishment clause is simply neutrality.
Do you support removing the tax exemption from black churches? Black churches are notorious for getting into politics.
the IRS will generally not dare. the US system thrives on letting people engage in religious fantasies.
just so long as the workers keep on paying their payroll taxes, that’s good enough
personally I think we should END FOR ALL 501C3S OF ANY KIND THE LOCAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION.
first and foremost. across the board for all of them, from Soros NGOs to the Church and synagogues and UNIVERSITIES too.
Of course, the words marriage and matrimony are derived from Mary, Mother of Jesus, Mary, Mother of God, Mater and Mater Dei, etc., and they represent motherhood, procreation and childbearing. Homosexuals have no possibility of engaging literally in marriage or matrimony or otherwise producing children while they may enter into contracts binding personal relationships.
For the uninitiated, newspeak is fictional. Perhaps there is a legal procedure to amend the English language.
“Same-sex marriage” is an oxymoronic contradiction in terms as its promoters feebly attempt to make perversions of nature and freaks of nature normal.
Who would fall for this ruse, deception and pure nonsense?
Monogamy predates the Catholic Church, Jesus and Mary. The Roman church does not own it, nor even the west. It’s a pretty sure bet that given our several hundred thousand years of social existence, the institution – under various conditions – is very ancient.
The institution of marriage and matrimony means making babies, for those of you in Rio Linda. If two people cannot make babies, they can’t be married or engage in matrimony. A married man and woman can make babies. That’s all anyone needs to know and private, personal medical records are not required. Monogamy is not the question. Making babies is. Mary, Mater and Motherhood all relate to baby making. Homosexuals cannot make babies, be married or engage in matrimony. They may engage in contracts establishing personal relationships if those contracts are legal and meet the proper criteria for legality, I presume.
Ah, the virtues of homosexuality. Homosexuality doesn’t produce offspring but it does produce the termination of the species – suicide of the species. There’s something to appreciate and cultivate. If evolution, nature or God had not made all living creatures self-replicating, human beings wouldn’t be here today. Entities that don’t self-replicate, don’t persist and become extinct. How might the termination and extinction of the species due to homosexuality benefit mankind? If homosexuality were virtuous and all people engaged in it, presumably exclusively because of its innate superiority, people wouldn’t be here today. There is a system failure in homosexuals. They are self-replicating entities that don’t self-replicate. Where’s the future in that? That is not a cause for celebration, advocacy and promotion. It may be a cause for sympathy but not praise and admiration; certainly not equivalent, special or superior status or, otherwise, normalization.
Why,….it’s a veritable Sunday on the Blog With George……🎨
The number of homosexuals in a population is largely fixed and not very large (1-3%?). We don;t know the cause but we are pretty sure that it is fixed either before or not long after birth and that sexual orientation it is not a changeable characteristic – do you think you could change which sex turns you on? Due to these facts, it is not a hreat to our species, or if it is, it almost certainly has been for thousands of years and we have survived. Keep in mind that some straight people also do not reproduce and this has never been a requirement in modern times that marriage must result in procreation. If it did, women over 45 who were widows or “spinsters” would be doomed to remain so.
Anon1…as a woman who grew up in the 50’s and 60’s, I had to laugh at your naive statement that “it’s never been a requirement in modern times that marriage must result in procreation” It was definitely a social and cultural requirement in the South.
Women who did not marry were considered objects of pity.
As were women who did not bear children!
The unfortunate who actually wanted children but could not conceive, were thought to be victims of God’s punishment because of some sin commited earlier.
Also, married couples who could not conceive were often suspicious of adopting a child for fear of getting “the demon seed”!
Cindy Bragg – God forbid you get Damien. 😉
Paul C….LOL… yeah, So how did that work out? 😊
Cindy Bragg – ask Lee Remick
Paul….hahahaha! Well, at least it took her mind off of her stretch marks 😊
My wife as adopted a very stubborn, prankish puppy.
We were debating what to name him, and she shot down my suggestion of “Damien”.
He’s 9 now, and I still call him Damien when he acts up.
I meant legally Cindy which is the arena gay rights plays out in. They are already ostracized by many in society, though thankfully less as time goes on and prejudices have ended.
Anon1, honeylamb. The gays are IN the legal arena because of the social and cultural behavior against them…
When I was single in the late 1960’s, my apartment was ground zero for all of my gay male neighbors…I was PRE-Googie Gomez at The Ritz , without the Puerto Rican accent. So there’s nothing you can tell me about that culture that I don’t know and didn’t experience. The term “gay” was not even part of the lexicon back then ….that was later….late 70’s maybe? And gay men and lesbians were mortal enemies at that time. Actually, I didn’t care to be around lesbians either. It wasn’t until AIDS that the two groups came together, politically..
But those men were the most fun people ever…. I have never laughed so hard. Social oppression produces the greatest humor. Sad but true.
You are so welcome, Anon1!! 😚
Cindy thanks for another trip down memory lane before you became a racist reactionary. Not all of us who grow old spend our time nursing prejudices.
PS You state “I didn’t care to be around lesbians either” leading one to wonder how your apartment became ground zero for gay men”, though not for long.
Anon1…huh? Sorry. I thought I was conversing with an adult. RACE? huh? No liberal thought is complete without that word, it seems.
A fruit fly is a straight woman hanging around gay men. That was I.
Cindy you’ve posted racist remarks here intended to denigrate all blacks and gin up hostility to them and enigma’s presence never fails to result in your talking about his race, no matter the subject. Yes, I heard the stories of your good old days but nothing you post now reflects that attitude, but it’s opposite.
Oh you are not Cindy. Anon1 can’t reply to what you say so the last resort is “you’re a racisss!”
Cindy’s racist posts are a fact and not a matter of interpretation. Some incident or another posted on JT’s blog which included anti-social or lawless behavior by a black(s) she used as representative of all blacks and something they were responsible for. I challenged that position, but she insisted it was characteristic of that group. I don;t think we should hold Ted Bundy and Hitler against white people, so I don;t get that reasoning as anything other than racist. Of course she always brings up race when enigma posts, no matter the subject.
On gays, she here talks about how she was the queen of the pride parade (paraphrasing) but then says : I didn’t like lesbians either”.
Cindy Bragg – have you watched “Good Omens” on Amazon Prime? If not, it is hysterically funny. Two angels are in charge of keeping track of the anti-Christ and then loss him in a baby mix-up and the wrong parents get the anti-Christ.
Thank you!….my daughter told me about it…she loves it. Will watch soon.
Cindy Bragg – your daughter has good taste. Enjoy! loss=lose
Thank you for your incoherent deflection chock full of “exceptions to the rule.”
Young men and women marry and are capable of procreation which is the purpose of the institution of marriage and holy matrimony.
The institution exists to protect the bond between a man and a woman in order to protect the children produced by that institution.
Rarely does a couple discover post-facto that they are incapable of having children.
Homosexuals have no possibility of effecting procreation and quite literally cannot “marry” as the word is derived from that which engenders motherhood.
Homosexuals are different and must pursue a different legal strategy for a binding personal relationship contract.
“Same-sex marriage,” by definition, is an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.
You struggle to make the abnormal normal because that is an impossible task and a fool’s errand.
From whence do you derive any power to irrationally amend the English language in that pursuit?
Are you chewing-out me or Anon1?? Hard to tell.
Sections of these threads sometimes resemble that “Who’s on First” routine, Cindy
LOL So true, anonymous.
Moi? I am attempting to demonstrate that the phrase, “same-sex marriage,” is a literal contradiction in terms and, therefore, nonsense.
Words mean things such as “homosexual.” It means Latin for man from the earlier Greek same and either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
Homosexuality is nonsensical since “same-sex” acts do not possess any “reproductive functions.”
Newspeak is fictional as is “same-sex marriage.”
George….ok….so itnis not I
It is not I
George, why don’t you try to stop thinking about what other consenting adults choose to do. Unless you live in Malibu, that is probably not a pretty picture, gay or straight, and none of your business.
Why don’t you let George believe anything he wants without recrimination? You’re not the Defender of the Gays, are you?
Why are you persecuting me mespo? You’re not the Defender of the Bigots are you?
It’s not bigotry to disagree with a lifestyle.
mespo…..thank you for your kindness…I think I figured out the scary place known as anon1’s noggin…..so
Since this blog is Res Ipsa, we must be Res- ist!
Gawd, it’s great to finally figure that out!🤣
Sexual orientation is not a lifestyle. You can’t change it with the seasons despite what your friends and you want to to believe.
Anon1 – the Alphabet Community is going to track your butt down and teach you a severe lesson. According to them you can be whatever damn orientation you want when ever you want.
Actually some male’s given to homosexuality and most women given to it pass in and out of that subculture throughout the course of their lives.
Susan Sontag was once asked about that and she said, “I turned 40 and I was getting better offers from women than from men”.
This isn’t an obscure piece of information. Recall Theodore Dalrymple’s observation that the hallmark of a totalitarian system was contrived exercises in humiliation: of compelling people to abase themselves by repeating what everyone knew to be utter nonsense. Much of the discussion of this subject (and, even more, ‘transgenderism’) is of this variety. Anon1 is a certain type.
And, of course, none of this reaches normative questions. One of the features of our time is the determination of professional-managerial types to fire people who dissent on that point. (There’s a physician in Boston who has been removed from the attending list at four local hospitals consequent to an intra-office memo deemed crimethink by TPTB).
Some humans are bi-sexual, more women than men. Most of us aren’t.
“[E]nduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation is uncommon. The participants in this body of research continued to experience same-sex attractions following SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts] and did not report significant change to other-sex attractions that could be empirically validated, though some showed lessened physiological arousal to all sexual stimuli. Compelling evidence of decreased same-sex sexual behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was rare. Few studies provided strong evidence that any changes produced in laboratory conditions translated to daily life. Thus, the results of scientifically valid research indicate that it is unlikely that individuals will be able to reduce same-sex attractions or increase other-sex sexual attractions through SOCE” (pp. 2-3).
In addition, the Task Force found evidence to indicate that some individuals experienced harm or believed they had been harmed by these interventions. The Task Force report provides a detailed discussion of this topic and an extensive review of relevant research.
In response to the Task Force report, the APA passed a 2009 resolution that stated, in part, “the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation” and “the American Psychological Association concludes that the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation.”
If the mere disapproval of homosexuality is enough to make one a “bigot” and outside the pale of civilized society, almost every person living before the year 2000 would qualify as such including such luminaries as Lincoln, FDR, Churchill, JFK and many, many others.
Don’t forget this list includes every pope who has ever lived and most every member of the Catholic clergy. Your parents were most likely “bigots” as were your grandparents.
Antonio, those in the past were ignorant of the facts of sexual orientation. We don’t have that excuse.
Disapproval of the characteristics of other humans who did not choose those characteristics is bigotry and results in damage to their lives.
For a discussion of the current science on the subject:
Antonio, those in the past were ignorant of the facts of sexual orientation. We don’t have that excuse.
Yes, we do. It never seems to dawn on you that fashionable opinion in your social circle is not what is meant by a ‘fact’. One of the things securely understood about sexual tastes is that they’re not inherited in any obvious way. (Studies of identical twins demonstrate this, buttressed by some recent genetic research). Not much else about the mechanism from a biological or psychological standpoint is well understood (though there are sociological studies which reveal things about behavior within male and female subcultures).
The APA long ago beclowned itself on this issue (among others).
There are several professional associations that don’t need reform. They need a refoundation. The APA is one.
The causes of homosexuality are complex with both environmental and genetic factors playing a part.
When I was attending university and law school I drove a taxi part time in a large university town on weekends and summers, got to know a lot of male homosexuals on a personal level. I found most of them to be miserable, promiscuous individuals who had major substance abuse problems. Had empathy for many of them. I would not wish the inclination or lifestyle on anyone.
Have a few questions for you which I am sure you won’t answer. Leftists never punch left or criticize those protected by political correctness.
Which of the following are “bigots”?
The black pastor who believes scripture condemns homosexual conduct and thus has religious objections to the practice?
The Orthodox Jewish rabbi similarly situated?
The Muslim imam who believes the Koran does not approve of homosexual behavior?
Of course, Cultural Marxism will not allow you to criticize or question any group seen as oppressed and thus favored (as are the above).
Should any of the above described religious groups (black Protestant, Orthodox Jewish, Muslim) lose their tax exempt status if they preach against homosexual conduct? And if not, why not?
Is it possible to have a sincere religious objection to homosexual conduct which is not actually based upon “bigotry and hatred”?
Are ordinary males who find the male homosexual act distasteful “bigots”?
Again, I do not expect an answer, you’ll just call me names. Leftists seldom debate but love to name call. The emperor has no clothes.
antonio, you might consider that a large part of the misery of the homosexuals you knew then was due to a life in the shadows and without any chance for a “normal” life, including family.
All 3 of your examples are bigots and seemingly due to their ignorance. In my opinion, relying on “scripture” of any kind as the word of God is by definition, ignorant.
Believing in free speech, I don’t think preaching ignorance should be curtailed by the government unless it cause direct provable harm (fire in a theatre). Prejudicial practices are another question which I don’t have a clear idea on, though I don’t think belief in supernatural beings should somehow grant rights to avoid laws that people who don’t believe in supernatural beings don’t have.
Lots of sexual habits of both gay and straight couple may seem distasteful to me. I don’t have to think about them, and if I do, that’s my problem, not the people I imagine performing them. For instance, right now I am not thinking about you having sex with anyone and that isn’t difficult.
I won’t call you names if you don’t call me any and your options are sincere.
George, based on your reasoning, marriage should not be available to women beyond the age of procreation and those of us married past that time who’s children have reached maturity are in empty and meaningless relationships.
Obviously that is not true, nor is it clear why you are so threatened by homosexuals that you wish to deny them the ability to join in an institution which benefits individuals and thereby society.
Mind your own f….g business.
It’s absolutely changeable. I’ve known several people who were once “gay” and now happily married in heterosexual relationships.with children. In both cases they chanted the homosexual mantra that they were “born.gay” with wild stories like the trannies tell about childhood proclivities. Feelings change over time.
Sure they are mespo. Modern miracles no doubt.
These counter-examples disprove the “gay for life” theory. Like Trannies, I suspect many “switch back” when the urge hits them.
Good luck to them, but not likely.
i think a small number are somehow inherently gay, some larger number are inherently bisexual, and most people are just heterosexual.
a small number have varying preferences which are subject to cognitive behavior therapy. i don’t have any hypothesis about whether those methods work across the board. common sense would say that therapy would certainly be more feasible with bisexuals than those with a stronger homosexual inclination.
i think a lot of gays and sex researchers would go along with those most comments off the record.
the confusion that goes along with trans-mania is a different issue. that is a form of insane body dysmorphia
some prominent homosexual activists have ardently denounced the fashion of “sex change” surgery and the inclusion of the trans agenda alongside their particular issue.
for the most part I could care less what homosexuals do or think or say, they’re a small number and always will be. I don’ t care for the misnamed homosexual marriage but since marriage has been reduced in its overall social significance to a small thing already, it hardly matters to me.
but the mutilation of people’s bodies with hormones and genital amputations is horrendous malpractice that should stop. it’s about as therapeutic as a lobotomy, also once a fashionable convention!
likewise celibacy. it was a part of various pagan cults and in the East it’s typical for Buddhist monks to be celibate too. whether they practice it truly or not, different question
Comments are closed.