Going postal over Obama
Got this email from a friend of mine, a pro-life leader in TN…
I don’t want to add to anyone’s despair, but even I was shocked last evening at the all night post office here in Nashville when an African American in line greeted an entering black pastor.
Naturally (?) the conversation began loudly with how well things were going with a fresh wind blowing, etc. I barely shook my head near the back of the line when a black woman next to me cheerfully said, ” guess you don’t agree.” I responded as most pro-lifers would that it was exciting to have a black president but not one so committed to killing the unborn… not to mention using our tax dollars to accomplish it.
At first, she gently chided me saying that many people pay tax dollars to fund practices to which they object (stem cell research, death penalty, etc.) I told her that I also objected to those practices as well. She started to heat up, however, as an elderly black woman injected her view that women seeking abortions were “going to have to answer to God for that….
As the debate grew louder and more intense, most of the 12-15 folks in line and the postal clerks remained quiet, clearly listening. The same gal next to me raised her “freedom of choice” and control over her body to which I asked if she carried a boy baby, was this also part of her body? (“Of course.”)
I asked about the location of abortion facilities in black neighborhoods and eugenicist Sanger to which she told me of attending Duke where a Planned Parenthood facility was clearly NOT in a minority neighborhood.
I asked her about our own PP center near historic Fisk University. This particularly infuriated her for some reason and led the pastor to get involved by raising “reparations” and the cruelty of America’s heritage. I am now clearer on what is meant by “spreading the wealth.”
I was told that the unborn would never know that they were killed and alternately that the Lord will take care of it. I asked whether we should have waited and allowed “the Lord to take care of the Holocaust” to which I was told that “those people” never stop talking about the Holocaust and that “we can’t go a day without having to hear about that!”
The exchange ultimately ended at the counter with those waiting dancing and chanting OBAMA and me responding with “Baby Killer,” something I never say and causes me this morning to wish I had found another rebuttal.
But my point in sharing is to ask about Obama supposedly bringing Americans together. I don’t recall any political campaign or election which brought such eruptions in common public areas.
And leaving, I thought that my appropriate response should have been embarrassment for not simply remaining politely quiet. But I felt none and instead left grateful for the unexpected opportunity to educate even those few standing in line. No one but this one woman tried to deny or defend his abortion positions.
And I drove home wondering how many times such exchanges are being repeated all across the country in towns big and small.
Lord help us to have boldness tempered with grace and humility….
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Forget “grace and humility.” You want to make your point…you go right ahead. People are HOPING people like you will shut up, so why do that? Every election divides the nation, because even in “landslide” years (and this wasn’t one, my angels) the losing candidate still gets at least 40%. I don’t know why people are so shocked to learn that someone they know or even someone just in their neighborhood voted a different way, when a “blown out” political candidate got at least two of every five votes.
“But my point in sharing is to ask about Obama supposedly bringing Americans together. I don’t recall any political campaign or election which brought such eruptions in common public areas.”
A relative few hysterical pro-lifers doesn’t mean the country is breaking up…
Josh, perhaps you’re willfully ignorant on the subject, but our country stands no more united today than it did 4 or 8 years ago. Imagine how you and your friends felt while Bush Jr. was in office. I didn’t see a lot of country unity in the “bushism countdown calander” or the “bush toliet paper”.
Now, the coin has turned and the republicans are the ones without their chosen candidate in office. We might not be publishing toliet paper, but we are every bit as unhappy as you were the past 8 years.
Sure, some of us are more outspoken than others, but the same discontent that existed on the left this past decade, now exists on the right.
A two party system tends to breed discontent within 50% of the population, and Obama has not magically fixed this problem.
Lauren, I didn’t cry and moan that the sky was falling when Bush got in.
But some relative few pro-lifers are just going nuts now.
Josh, perhaps you didn’t, but I know alot of people that did.
Also, Obama represents the most anti-life branch of his party. He isn’t just some run of the mill democrat. You also need to understand that Jill personally stood against Obama year after year as he mounted the attack against her bill. Pro-lifers are very upset by this president, and conservatives in general are very weary of his socialist leanings.
Though most are perservering without undue hysteria, discontent still clearly exists.
Perhaps the best response to her would have been:
May I pray for us now? (Bow head and pray immediately) – that God would use this moment to reveal to us that all men are created equal in his sight, whether born or unborn, whatever their age, nationality, skin color, sex, or political disposition, and that we would truly learn to love our neighbors as much as we love ourselves.
What are they going to say?
You know, I think you must be doing good, Jill, or people wouldn’t come on your blog and call you hysterical and such nonsense. I mean after all, why on earth would you want to be part of the majority if that is what they stand for?
The extreme right propagandists unite!
They just can’t stand it that we don’t want him, and it makes them crazy mad and so they get insulting. So, keep speaking out, and hopefully you can at least feel good about yourself when the day is done.
Don’t sweat it Jill.
Hey Josh, it’s not just pro-lifers who are worried that the sky is falling due to the election of Obama.
Advocates of free speech are also worried, considering that Sen. Schumer, one of the leaders of the Democratic Party, thinks that any speech which is against Obama amounts to “pornography” and should be regulated by the government.
Advocates of the Second Amendment are worried since Democrats tend to be gun grabbers when it’s not an election year.
People who think that the war on terror is a real war and not something made up by Jews to make money are worried, since they want a good Commander-in-Chief for our military, not some guy who doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Advocates of capitalism are worried, since Obama want to punish success, thus removing the incentive for businesses to succeed, and for large businesses to expand.
People who think that judges should actually rule according to the text of the Constitution are worried, since Obama has promised to nominate judicial activists for the courts who make it all up as they go along, forcing their own personal opinions on us.
So as you can see, there are plenty of reasons to be worried that have nothing to do with the fact that Obama is going fight tooth and nail to strip away 35 years worth of rights from the unborn.
Oh Chris! I will remember that if ever I should find myself in a like situation! That was inspired by the Holy Spirit!
re: Lauren at November 11, 2008 4:46 PM
I would argue that Bush left us far worse off. He ignored terror threats until we got hit at the World Trade Center (If clinton ignored previous threats it does not negate Bush’s ignorance of them).
Bush also created a massive deficit, invaded another county and ignored Wall Street shenanigans. These combined with the World Trade Center blunder previously mentioned created the worst presidency in the history of the country. I’m sure God loves him, but as a president he is an utter failure.
From the FRC:
Wood Splinters Pro-Life Gains
Barack Obama’s website, once home to the President-elect’s sweeping plan for America, is surprisingly empty. Blogs are speculating why the massive, 25-point agenda was replaced this week with a brief statement. But in Washington, where people are policy, Americans should focus on Obama’s personnel directory-not his website-to understand where our country is headed.
This week, as reports circulate about who the President-elect’s appointments will be, the spotlight has briefly rested on Susan Wood, co-chair of Obama’s “advisory committee for women’s health.” Wood, who is vehemently pro-abortion, is rumored to be the next commissioner of the FDA. Three years ago, Wood was at that very agency, heading the Office of Women’s Health. When her boss postponed a plan to make “emergency contraception” available to teen girls over the counter, Wood resigned in protest. She was outraged that the FDA wanted to delay sales until they could ensure that children under 16 could not access the drug without medical supervision. Under Wood’s authority, the FDA would err as she does-on the side of abortion advocacy, not American safety.
Her influence in the Obama administration could also mean the end of pro-life measures in our global AIDS policy. In a speech, Wood claims the U.S. has been “going in the wrong direction” on PEPFAR. While leaders in Africa have universally praised Bush’s emphasis on abstinence and monogamy, Wood hints that the new president will implement a condom-based approach “not just this narrow, political ideology.” That would be bad news for Africans.
I believe that the Obama presidency will amount to an unspeakable horror. Maybe not a noticeable to the general public as the Holocaust, but Mr. Obama’s willingness to allow babies who survive abortion to die for lack of care in a dark closet among the soiled linens does suggest that his capacity for empathy hovers around the level of that of Josef Mengele.
why don’t you go do something about things.. instead of spending all your hours blogging.. Seriously. I am sick and tired of folks that just keep yelling, but don’t get their hands dirty.
I know alot of people doing things to reduce abortion… and blogging isn’t one of them.
I’d say you hit the nail on the head, John.
So here’s something totally creepy. I went into the city (Chicago) today and was walking in the Loop. When I got down near the Board of Trade and Federal building there were those big banners hanging from the street poles and they were all a picture of “The One” with the slogan “Yes, We Can and his little O seal. They lined the streets in all directions. Obamania lives. I’ve never seen anything like it. Well, I’ve seen pictures, from a bygone era, but have never actually seen it in my lifetime. The propaganda is out in full force, but yea, we’re freaking out for no reason. Mmmhmmm.
Allena, 5:23p: What, me HYSTERICAL??!!
Bush also created a massive deficit, invaded another county and ignored Wall Street shenanigans. These combined with the World Trade Center blunder previously mentioned created the worst presidency in the history of the country. I’m sure God loves him, but as a president he is an utter failure.
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at November 11, 2008 5:56 PM
50 plus months of employment growth till the elected in a Democrat controlled Congress. that brought in the big spenders. Dem$not hones$t abount money.
.Please explain How President blundered the World Trade Center. He wasn’t there and they had set to get his House like Ayers wanted to.
President Bush is excellent. His circumstance were terrible. His calls for regulation where the Fannie Gay spending was out of control were ignored.
Posted by: DeeL at November 11, 2008 6:11 PM
‘…..his little O seal. ‘
When I see this symbol, I do not think of a letter, but a number; zero, zeta.
A vast expanse of vacuous nothingness.
yor bro ken
Posted by: DeeL at November 11, 2008 6:11 PM
When I got down near the Board of Trade and Federal building there were those big banners hanging from the street poles and they were all a picture of “The One” with the slogan “Yes, We Can and his little O seal.
————————————————–
Deel,
Could you post some photos here or email them to Jill so she could post them?
yor bro ken
3,000 a day? Didn’t the pro-lifers used to claim it was 4,000 a day? So abortions in America have decreased by 365,000 a year? Well why are you so scared, at this rate not only will there be no abortions there will be negative abortions, people will be having more babies.
Jess, the number is 4000/day.
Lauren the picture attached to Jill’s post says “3000 a day.” Unless it’s all lies.
It’s not all lies, but it does have the number wrong. The most recent abortion statistics (excluding CA and a few other states) put the abortion rate at. 1.25 million/year.
Sorry for the tripple post there, I’m trying to fix my phone (vonnge) and it looks like things got a bit twisted.
Just FYI, DO NOT GET VONAGE! Sure it’s cheap, but you might not be able to call 911. They have a special 911 service, but I was still unable to complete my call.
Thankfully I was able to get ahold of my husband, and he called 911 for me, but this is definitely NOT how things should be. So, seriously, don’t get vonage!
Ken,
I took one on my phone, but it’s nearly dead. When it gets some power I will try and Bluetooth it to my computer. This technology may be just a little beyond me.
Well where did you get your number from Lauren? And why would Jill put it up if she knew it contained false information?
The behavior experienced by the pro-lifer in Nashville is not unexpected. We saw some of it on election day in the City of Brotherly Love where the Black Panthers were intimidating voters at the polls. When reporters attempted to interview the perpetrators about the intimidation they got similar treatment.
John L: Senator Schumer’s comparing talk radio to pornography is interesting. As an Illinois State Senator Obama voted against restricting the sale of porn within 100 yards of schools. So maybe Chuck should look for something else to compare talk radio to that actually bothers Obama if he wants the new pres to sign off on it.
The economic outlook under Obama does not look too rosy either. The first thing he wants to do is throw away hundreds of billions on another so called “stimulus” package so we can go to Wal Mart and buy more Chinese made trinkets. Very helpful.
After months of trumpeting his ability to unify us, Obama’s first act as Pres-elect is to appoint one of the most polarizing figures in Washington, Rahm (Rahmbo) Emanuel. Look for Obama to be sheltered by his handlers.
DeeL: Being from the Chicago area myself I can appreciate your reaction to the Obama worship downtown. Maybe someone ought to create a 24/7 “Obama Channel.” His adorers could remained affixed to that and leave the rest of us to go about our lives without our having to endure a half hour of Obamahype every night on the “news” and Chairman Mao type banners strung out everywhere.
Jess I got my number from the guttmacher institute.
The number hovers around 3700, but is variable. Jill rounded down, most round up. It could also be a typo. It’s really not worth getting worked up over, Jess, when the numbers are free for anyone to view.
Don’t get Vonage? I wanted to switch to Vonage (next year) cause my “local” phone company (Windstream) is such a RIP OFF. They charge $3.50 a month to not publish your phone #, they charge for long distance usage even if you’re not USING it, and they keep sending junk to sign up for their internet or television services. Plus, the guy who got me to switch to their “connect flex” package said I’d get information on how some of the services like call waiting work, but its been over 2 months and all I’ve gotten is the phone bill and snail mail SPAM.
And don’t get me started about all those FEES they charge you — city occupation tax, FCC, state tax, city sales tax, etc, etc.
Lauren, You’re calling 911, are you OK?
Posted by: DeeL at November 11, 2008 8:06 PM
Ken,
I took one on my phone, but it’s nearly dead. When it gets some power I will try and Bluetooth it to my computer. This technology may be just a little beyond me.
————————————————–
Deel,
I can relate. All this time saving technology, frustrates me more than it helps me.
yor bro ken
Janet, yeah. My son somehow got ahold of some prenatal vitamins. He obviously put some in his mouth and I didn’t know if he ingested any. But, his response time/pulse/breatheing seemed ok when the EMT came, and poison control insturcted me to monitor him, call if anything changes, and have him seen tomorrow to get a iron level check.
Liz, I wouldn’t unless you have a back up phone with you at all times in case you have an emergency. I followed all of Vonage’s steps to ensure I had 911 service, but when the time came I was not able to connect to 911.
Okay Ken,
i have it in my iPhotos. Now how do I get it onto the blog?
Can a moderator please tell me how I can post a picture from my iPhoto?
Oh Lauren,
I’m so sorry about your son. You both are in my prayers.
“The economic outlook under Obama does not look too rosy either. The first thing he wants to do is throw away hundreds of billions on another so called “stimulus” package so we can go to Wal Mart and buy more Chinese made trinkets. Very helpful.”
A lot more useful than giving money to giant businesses..IMO. Maybe you’d go to Wal-Mart and buy Chinese made trinkets, but a lot of people will get their heads above water. If it’s not going to the people as a stimulus, it would go to big business. Also, that’s not the first thing he wants to do as President. He wants it to happen as soon as possible so he can vote on it in Congress…
Someone should tell these people that Barry opposes gay marriage:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/11/video-forces-of-tolerance-confront-proposition-8-supporter/
Oh wait. They know that Barry opposes gay marriage. Then why do they support him? Because they know that he will nominate insane activist judges who will force gay marrage on the entire country.
Watch the video. It’s great to see a mob of radical homosexual lunatics slobbering all over a solitary old woman carrying a cross, snarling and screaming at her… and then at the end, the news reporter informs us that there is a lot of anger on both sides of the Prop 8 issue. Ha, ha!
Also interesting: These people got their president elected. They increased their majority in both houses of Congress. They should be HAPPY! But they’re freaking out over something as asinine as gay marriage? Holy cow. If Sarah Palin or another conservative were elected president, and if the Republicans were on the verge of having supermajorities in both houses of Congress, let me tell you, I wouldn’t really be too upset about if in one state, people voted to legalize gay marriage. Priorities, people.
Josephine: “A lot more useful than giving money to giant businesses..IMO. Maybe you’d go to Wal-Mart and buy Chinese made trinkets, but a lot of people will get their heads above water. If it’s not going to the people as a stimulus, it would go to big business. Also, that’s not the first thing he wants to do as President. He wants it to happen as soon as possible so he can vote on it in Congress…”
How about we work on the defecit? Besides, if mean ol big business gets the money, maybe they will not fire as many people. 1000 more dollars may help you in the short run, but not in the long run. I know because Ive been there. A better paying job, or a job period is how you get stable.
I believe that the Obama presidency will amount to an unspeakable horror. Maybe not a noticeable to the general public as the Holocaust, but Mr. Obama’s willingness to allow babies who survive abortion to die for lack of care in a dark closet among the soiled linens does suggest that his capacity for empathy hovers around the level of that of Josef Mengele.
Posted by: Bismarck at November 11, 2008 6:09 PM
Now Bismarck, you’ve got that one mixed up. It was Obama in the Senate hearings who suggested just such a measure as a comfort room, so that any early delivered but non-viable fetus would have an appropriate place to expire – and it was dear, dear, dear but horribly misguided Jill Stanek who was, and continues to be, against such a thing(note how she inexplicably seems to think posting photos of just such an amenity at her former employer is some sort of endictment.)
If there was a way to guarantee business would take that money and make new American jobs, than fine. You know what though? The reason giant business got tax cuts under Republicans was because of “trickle down economics”. However, the businesses used that money to give CEOs big fat salaries. …there’s no way to stop that from happening. For SMALL business, $1,000 and some Obama tax cuts could SAVE them. I’m all for small business, not big. ($1,000 is also the first year at a community college. OR some day care for single parents…)
And John, marriage is up to states. Why do you say such crazy things? I’m sure if it was YOU being told you couldn’t get married, you wouldn’t be saying “priorities” anymore.
This is for my Catholic brothers and sisters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU
I’m not Mormon but I do salute the Mormons for taking a stand for marriage.
Hisman, do you also salute the Mormons for their posthumous baptisms into the LDS church of Jewish victims of the holocaust? Even after they agreed to stop doing it 13 years ago?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/11/baptizing.dead.jews.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
And the “pro-life” “Catholic” Democrat Josephine supports gay marriage, too. SHOCKING!!!!
FYI, the courts can, have, and will force gay marriage on us if Obama and friends fill them with judicial activists. That’s why radical gays like Andrew Sullivan voted for Obama.
HisMan, I don’t agree with Mormon theology, but I have never met a Mormon who didn’t bend over backwards to show kindness to other people. The liberals tell people like me that I should be nice and that I’ll catch more flies that way, but when they say that, I can only point to the Mormons, who never say a negative word against anyone, but who are treated like trash by radical leftist monstrosities.
What kind of results are the Jews finding on these baptisms?
I think both parties are off the mark. (Mark 16:16)
What kind of results are the Jews finding on these baptisms?
I think both parties are off the mark. (Mark 16:16)
Posted by: xppc at November 11, 2008 10:12 PM
Well, the Jews in question are dead. They were murdered by Nazi Germany for the crime of being Jewish. You’d have to ask them what results they’re finding, although I’m not sure they’re corresponding with the living at this point.
“Just curious”, what do I care if Mormons have their own ideas about how Baptism works?
At least they aren’t trying to destroy my country with liberal insanity. On the contrary, they’re working to help save the country.
…What is your point, John? It sounds to me like you think pro-life people shouldn’t support gay marriage. Like you think pro-life people should fit a certain description, and if they don’t, they’re not actually pro-life.
You’re ridiculous.
Curious:
I specifically said that I salute the Mormons for their stand on marriage.
No I don’t think baptizing the dead for any reason is sound theology even though Paul uses the issue rhetorically.
Would you rather have had the Mormons not participate and have Prop 8 defeated?
what do I care if Mormons have their own ideas about how Baptism works?
I can see that respect for the Jewish faith ranks high on your list of priorities.
No, Josephine. I think that CATHOLICS should oppose gay marriage. Didn’t you claim to be Catholic, or I am mistaken? Please GOD let me be mistaken about that.
Hey “just curious”, you do realize that Mormons have “baptized” CATHOLICS as well as Jews, don’t you? They have even “baptized” Catholic Popes. Do I agree with it? No. Does it have any effect on me whatsoever? No. And ultimately, it’s an act of good will. Mormons think that by “baptizing” people of other faiths, they are helping them get to Heaven. You expect me to condemn them for that?
Take your stupid bigotry and go post it on Daily Kos or some other hate site.
My priest is a Catholic (what a coincidence) and he doesn’t oppose gay marriage. It’s a legal matter, not a religious matter.
Josephine, it sounds like someone needs to get your “priest” a copy of the Catechism.
Posted by: DeeL at November 11, 2008 6:11 PM
DeeL,
I saw a play in the City on Sunday and saw those banners too. I couldn’t even look up, I kept my head down and looked at the sidewalk. I couldn’t stand to look.
My priest doesn’t judge anyone. He doesn’t support gay marriage. He believes it’s wrong. He just doesn’t oppose it because not everyone is Catholic. He wants people to follow the Catholic faith, but you can’t force anyone. Why not let people be happy.
Anyway, the gay marriage debate is already in another thread… and it’s very, very long.
John: Josephine, it sounds like someone needs to get your “priest” a copy of the Catechism.
And JP II’s “Man and Woman, He Created Them”
Josephine, based on what you’ve said about your priest, it’s no wonder you’re so screwed up. If there are many priests like yours, it’s also no wonder that Obama could win the Catholic vote.
If you haven’t noticed, everything changes and evolves. That goes for religion too.
Kristan,
There were quite a few police around and they had some of the streets partially blocked off right by the Board of Trade. I was getting a little nervous. I thought I might be arrested for an eyeroll or inadvertently showing my disdain.
The Catholic Church proclaims the Truth handed onto her 2000 years ago, not fashion.
Jesus Christ, yesterday, today and always.
Yes, religion evolves and changes! In 20 years, instead of Jesus dying for our sins it will be Bozo the Clown squirted water in some guy’s face for our amusement. We’ll pull down all the Crucifixes and replace them with “modern” style paintings of Bozo the Clown. And instead of praying the “Our Father”, we’ll pray “Bozo, Forever In Our Hearts”.
Ridiculous? Of course. But so is the notion that the church should “evolve” and support something like gay marriage.
So we have gender confused priests. Nothing new here.
The Gays are in an uproar. Good. It looks like they are bigoted and crude. Exactly what they accuse loving people of being. I suspect rome will divide and some pursue scripture and some go to what is right in their own desires. Looks like gay violence will give them a setback of many years,.
…John, again, I’m going to have to say I’m not sure you’re a real person. Never did I say the church supported gay marriage. I said my priest doesn’t oppose gay marriage. There’s a big difference.
“I said my priest doesn’t oppose gay marriage.”
No wonder why we’re in big trouble…
DeeL @10:43 PM
“If you haven’t noticed, everything changes and evolves. That goes for religion too.”
The Catholic Church proclaims the Truth handed onto her 2000 years ago, not fashion.
Jesus Christ, yesterday, today and always.
Amen.
Josephine,
There are over a dozen welcoming Catholic congregations in NYC. Your priest is not alone. Someday – as has happened so many times before – people will look back and realize how silly it was to get so hysterical over gay couples wanting to make their relationships “official” in the eyes of God and the law.
The Pro Life movement misses out on a lot of devoted pro life Catholics when they treat gays so horribly.
If being Catholic is all you’re counting on to stop abortion.. you’re kind of screwed. Geeze, if you didn’t make everything about religion maybe more people would listen. Instead, your plan is to attack the religion of someone who is already pro-life? Way to endear yourself to the masses.
Shep, What’s more important, being pro-life or pro-gay?
Shep, thank you. I was beginning to think everyone here thought the exact same way.
Why do you have to be pro-life or pro-gay? …AND not opposing gay marriage doesn’t mean you’re pro-gay, unless you consider yourself pro-straight.. which, is weird.
Jo,
You said you were for abortion being legal the other day, how can you be pro-life if you’re for legalized abortion?
Josephine,
Why do you have to be pro-life or pro-gay?
I’m just repeating what Shep said. Shep is implying that many gays are rejecting the pro-life movement because they are being treated poorly by pro-lifers.
So I ask again:
Shep, What’s more important, being pro-life or pro-gay?
(or) Why does the gay issue take precedence over the life issue?
I’ve also said that I don’t think abortion should have anything to do with the government. It’s not the GOVERNMENT that you should be trying to change. It’s the women having abortions. If you stop the people having abortions, there’s no need to work in the government and you can finally stop whining about democrats. I mean, let’s face it, it’s not the 47 year old man in the White House that’s going to have an abortion anyway. You think he cares?
I’ve also said I think it should be in the Hippocratic oath that doctors cannot give abortions. My dad is a doctor and he agrees with my view on that.
As my pastor quoted from “Alice in Wonderland”, “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.”
(the oath does say “and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.” so I believe that part should be widened.)
Do many of you, like me, look at the signature first to see if you should read the comment?
Just curious
“Yes, religion evolves and changes! In 20 years, instead of Jesus dying for our sins it will be Bozo the Clown squirted water in some guy’s face for our amusement. We’ll pull down all the Crucifixes and replace them with “modern” style paintings of Bozo the Clown. And instead of praying the “Our Father”, we’ll pray “Bozo, Forever In Our Hearts”.”
LOL, John.
I’ve also said I think it should be in the Hippocratic oath that doctors cannot give abortions. My dad is a doctor and he agrees with my view on that.
Posted by: Josephine at November 11, 2008 11:27 PM
so who would do these abortions Josephine?
————————————————-
If you haven’t noticed, everything changes and evolves. That goes for religion too.
Posted by: Josephine at November 11, 2008 10:41 PM
it depends upon what you mean by “evolves”. For example, our understanding of the sacrament of marriage and sexuality of the body has evolved and expanded as a result of the writings of John Paul II. However, if by “evolved” you mean liberalizes then you are incorrect, at least for the Catholic church. In the example I used above, this greater understanding of the sacrament of marriage has led the Catholic church to a further strengthening of it’s position that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Wow, some of these comments…. like, the exact number of babies dying from abortion every day is a crucial factor in the abortion debate? Like, if the figure is really 5,000, then you will be prolife? Or if it’s 2,000, you’ll stay proabort? Oh wait, I get it, someone is desperate to find a way to smear a prolifer… that’s all.
And someone says the behavior of prolifers might make them become a proabort? Wow, think of that! Someone actually claims that they would start to favor the elective killing of unborn babies because of the behavior of an adult opponent of abortion? Really? You would advocate killing babies because of what some adult has said or done?
Now, as to the euphoria and combativeness of the Obamites, my advice is to lay low, remain calm, and wait a few months. By next July or August, you won’t be able to find a single person who will admit to having voted for Obama.
Yo La Tengo: Explain to me why DEMOCRAT Bill Clinton had Osama bin Ladin cornered but refused to deal with him? That would have stopped 9/11..and explain to me why you think it was President Bush’s fault that the economy came crashing down. If you were knowledgeable on the subject you would know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were managed/infiltrated by the DEMOCRATS. As a matter of fact, these same liberals were part of Obama’s team and largely to blame for the crisis that has hit America. While we have been on a down hill slide for years, it can’t be pinned on one President. I guess you could blame President Bush if he had been in power the last 200 hundred years. Then I would agree with you. But most wise people realize that one President didn’t bring us to this point. It was people and what they wanted and their willingness to turn from God. Here is Scripture that applies to this election.
Isaiah 6:9-10
You will be ever hearing but never understanding
You will be ever seeing but never perceiving
For this, people’s heart has become calloused
they hardly hear with their ears
and they have closed their eyes
Otherwise they might see with their eyes
hear with their ears
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them
Amen
What’s more important, being pro-life or pro-gay?
Ya know, it always makes me laugh a little bit when people say “pro-gay.” Like, what is that? Pro-gay as in you think people should be able to live their lives how they want to live them?
Gee, I thought that was what America was all about…
Guess that means I’m pro-gay.
Pro-life AND pro-gay. The 2 don’t have anything to do with each other. They are completely separate issues and pro-lifers have for some reason joined them together as though they do. I would prefer it if we focused on the babies and less on the gay people. Gay people aren’t running out in record numbers having abortions so I.don’t.care. Let’s focus on the straight people who are getting it on and then getting rid of the evidence k?
You know, I woke up with an odd thought this morning.
Why is it that liberalized society (and especially Hollywood) totally tramples on marriage (“We don’t need a dumb ‘piece of paper’ to legitimize our relationship; that’s archaic”)…until it involves gay people?
I would actually like some perspective on this. Elizabeth, maybe you can offer some thoughts.
Good question, Kel!
Jane; I don’t think catching bin Laden would have stopped 9/11. It’s not like the group of terrorists would be like, “well, our leader is dead. I guess it’s time to give it up and go home to our wives.” They would choose another leader.
However since he did orchestrate the attacks, he is directly responsible for them.
“Why is it that liberalized society (and especially Hollywood) totally tramples on marriage (“We don’t need a dumb ‘piece of paper’ to legitimize our relationship; that’s archaic”)…until it involves gay people?”
I don’t understand the question.
And also, the Church has evolved…for example the history of the papacy is VERY interesting; the understanding of science and marriage has definitely changed. Obviously, what defines Christianity has not evolved, because that is quite the point of the whole Church, eh?
I wonder that as well, Kel. I read some accounts of homosexual couples who fought for defeat of the traditional marriage amendment. They said that they would love to get married and be recognized but if they fail they know a marriage license is just a piece of paper. ??!!
1. Do Homosexual Couples Have Stable, Long Term, Loving Relationships?
The popular perception of gay and lesbian couples is that of two people of the same-sex enjoying a close, loving and intimate relationship, totally dedicated to one another. But again, in the vast majority of cases, nothing could be further from the truth.
The most comprehensive study of gay lifestyles undertaken before 1980 shows that 43% of white male homosexuals estimated they had had sex with 500 or more different partners; 75% had had 100 or more sexual partners; 28% (the largest subcategory) reported more than 1,000 partners; 79% said more than half their partners were strangers and 70% said more than half their sexual partners were men with whom they had sex only once.
A study of San Francisco gay men published in Psychology Today (Feb. 1981) also reported that 28% of gay men surveyed had engaged in sex with more than 1,000 partners.
AIDS research released in 1982 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical gay man interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a 20 year span. Gay people with AIDS studied averaged more than 1,100 ‘lifetime’ partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. (Yes, 20 thousand!)
http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/other?id=P339
doesn’t look like they want marriage.
Maybe remind people that Obama is in bed with the abortionists who kill approximately fifty percent of Black babies in the U.S., (at 5 times the rate of White babies) currently.
Mention a disagreement with the liberals who think that aborting minorities is a good way to reduce crime.
Posted by: Patricia at November 12, 2008 7:03 AM
Patricia, I’d have to say that things don’t “evolve” they tend to “erode.” Wouldn’t you agree?
Carla @ 9:21,
The irony!
Yeah, sister, you really “educated” people in the post office line by hollering ‘Baby killer.’
People like you, whose reflexive response is to get shrill, tend to do more harm than good to the pro-life movement
I would actually like some perspective on this. Elizabeth, maybe you can offer some thoughts.
Posted by: Kel at November 12, 2008 9:09 AM
Kel, look at Olbermann’s “special comment” on youtube about prop 8. It will explain the crazy “liberal” idea about people in love wanting commitment.
Hi Elizabeth,
Pro-life AND pro-gay. The 2 don’t have anything to do with each other. They are completely separate issues and pro-lifers have for some reason joined them together as though they do.
I assumed Shep was saying that pro-life gays weren’t voting for the pro-life candidate – placing the “gay issues” ahead of the life issue. Now I see he was talking about pro-lifers in general. (I should stay away from subjects I usually don’t comment on.)
Kel, look at Olbermann’s “special comment” on youtube about prop 8. It will explain the crazy “liberal” idea about people in love wanting commitment.
Posted by: Hal at November 12, 2008 10:54 AM
*******************************************
That wasn’t my question, Hal, but thanks for paying attention.
This was your question Kel:
“Why is it that liberalized society (and especially Hollywood) totally tramples on marriage (“We don’t need a dumb ‘piece of paper’ to legitimize our relationship; that’s archaic”)…until it involves gay people?”
Olbermann’s comment speaks to that issue.
Okay, I listened to his overly emotional rant, and he didn’t answer my question. (BTW, for those of you who think we pro-lifers are emotional, Keith Olbermann exemplifies the false indignation and emotionalism of the left.)
I had a very long response ready to post, but I don’t think I’ll do it. Short answer, people like Keith Olbermann spend their lives destroying people of faith and their beliefs and throwing them back in their faces, until a time comes when he wants to manipulate them and appeal to them regarding his version of “what love is.”
“doesn’t look like they want marriage.”
News flash: allowing gay people to marry isn’t requiring them to. If a gay person doesn’t want to get married, they don’t have to. Just like straight people can choose to live together instead of getting married.
There just is no reason to deny gay people the right to marry. No legitimate reason, anyway. I once heard Rabbi Daniel Lapin state on the radio that there is no non-religious reason to be against gay marriage. I agree.
Prettyinpink–Most likely it could have been averted. He was their leader and they were following orders.
Posted by: Jane at November 12, 2008 8:57 AM
Jane – who has been in power for the last 8 years. Who has held control of congress
House Senate
Democrats 235 49
Independents 0 2
Republicans 199 49
Vacancies 1
They do not have a 2/3 majority in the house and only have a 1 vote majority in the senate (with cheney as tie breaker. Bush controls the executive branch and has nominated a swath of judges (two to the supreme court). Please don’t lie to yourself and think that there is nothing the republicans could have done to stop the crisis. The democrats didn’t appoint the treasury secretary or the Fed Chairman. The president appoints those. If anything bush expanded the role of the presidency, which gives him more responsibility. Congressional oversight, at his request has been minimal. During Bush’s first press conference he even said that he has accumulated “political capital” and was going to use it.
I don’t believe that all gay people want to get married. I believe some gay people don’t want to get married.
I also believe there are some very outspoken gay people in some high offices and their goal is to undermine traditional marriage between a man and a woman. The foundation of society.
Also, they want to start with young people and influence them starting in Kindygarten to accept their lifestyle as normal.
I am not looking to fight with anyone on this thread. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I read yours already.
PS Try indoctrinating my kiddoes and you will have a fight on your hands. :O
“The foundation of society.”
wouldn’t the foundation be stronger if gay people could marry to and join the foundation?
Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. Any other attempts at “marriage” that is not between a man and a woman undermines this foundation.
Carla, I like you. I honestly don’t understand your point. (even if something is not “traditional” it doesn’t necessarily “undermine” anything other than tradition) I’m willing to stop arguing about it though.
Hal, I like you. You don’t have to understand my point. I am fine with that. :) Are we arguing?? Our first fight? That’s so sweet!! Don’t tell me you haven’t heard what I am saying before…….
Peace.
Carla, I heard it many times. It just makes no sense to me. I’ve calmed down a bit since last week, and with faith that justice will eventually come, I’ll be happy to just understand that good people on both sides have strong opinions…..
Hal,
Well, we have some things in common I guess. The PC beliefs make no sense to me at times either.
Pro-gay is anti-life simply by essence of what it is. Homosexuals do not reproduce. (At least, not yet, but Babel’s Tower is working on it) That is why the Catholic Church counts it as part of the culture of death.
This can hardly be defended thoroughly with a simple paragraph here, but the government support of marriage has nothing to do with religion. It exists because the family is the fundamental & foundational root of society. A healthy and thriving society leads to a healthy and thriving nation. So the government has a vested interest in encouraging stable, heterosexual relationships – so they produce healthy & productive citizens. (Which is why the government also supports programs to decrease rates of divorce & single parenthood)
When you read the way these people talk about love & relationships, it is clear that homosexuals don’t actually want marriage as it is understood by heterosexuals (the vast majority see sex as something recreational rather than monogamously exclusive) – they want to redefine the traditional structure of society in the misguided belief that they will then be able to feel at peace with their lifestyle.
Surveys & research done in places like Scandanavia, however – which removed all of the “obstacles” to homosexuality decades ago – indicate that homosexual supporters will have succeeded in making marriage radically more irrelevant to the culture, but sadly they will not find the internal peace they seek down this destructive path.
so who would do these abortions Josephine?
Posted by: Patricia at November 12, 2008 7:03 AM
Patricia, that’s my point. I don’t think it should BE a legal issue. Doctors who violate the Hippocratic Oath lose their license(in most cases) but there aren’t necessarily laws back every statement in the oath. I don’t think it should be a legal issue, because then there are TOO many people voting for a president based on his pro-life stance.. I don’t think that’s right. Don’t you see what I mean?
And as for the rest of your comment: Not everyone is Catholic. My priest understands that. You can FORCE it on anyone. Marriage is a legal right when it comes to government. No one is making churches marry gay couples.
xppc, Maybe you should look up studies that weren’t done over 20 years ago. If you didn’t notice, the public perception of gay people has changed…
Marriage is a legal right when it comes to government. No one is making churches marry gay couples.
Really? Since when is marriage a RIGHT? Huh? And no one is making churches “marry” gay couples YET, but in Canada we were told that civic officials would be able to refuse and have someone else do the job. This did not happen. Civic marriage commissioners were either fired or quit in anticipation of being fired.
Well, I live in America, not Canada. Sooo… whatev’.
What do you mean since when is marriage a RIGHT?
Marriage is a civil right that is not now and has never been dependent upon any one religion or even religion in general for its justification, existence, or perpetuation.”
http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageCivil.htm
wouldn’t the foundation be stronger if gay people could marry to and join the foundation?
Posted by: Hal at November 12, 2008 2:56 PM
no it would NOT. The reason is becuase the family is the foundation of society. The natural family, ya know, the kind where there is a mother and a father and they have children, raising them to marry some day and have their own families. Each family therefore builds a society with a culture. If the family breaks down as it has been doing the past 35 years, society crumbles.
Same-sex partners cannot do this. They cannot procreate in a natural way and therefore cannot have a family. They do not offer a balance to any children that are part of their household. It is not the natural, desired nor best way to create a society. Of course, what we have seen is the redefining of family and marriage to make way for same-sex “families”. It’s nonsense and merely an attempt to legitimize a deformed lifestyle.
So Patricia, what about straight couples that don’t have children? And, I’m not sure the last time you looked up the definition of “family” but in no way would gay marriage redefine it.
“a group of people who are generally not blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals and, frequently, live together:”
or
“parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not.”
The definition of family has nothing to do with a man and a woman.
Josephine,
(Patricia, I hope you don’t mind my commenting.) Since when is “atheism.about.com” the authority on marriage and family? The whole article is ridiculous. The final paragraph:
Marriage in America is indeed a contract — a contract that comes with more obligations than rights. Marriage is a civil right that is not now and has never been dependent upon any one religion or even religion in general for its justification, existence, or perpetuation. Marriage exists because people desire it and the community, working through the government, helps ensure that married couples are able to do what they need to in order to survive. At no point is religion needed or necessarily relevant.
Now that’s a stretch.
I think you are joking when you say you are Catholic. Joke’s on us. :)
Ooooooh Grace!! Love your comment!!
So…a bunch of guys that live together that love the Packers are a family? Got it.
The definition of family has nothing to do with a man and a woman.
Posted by: Josephine at November 12, 2008 5:21 PM
really?
A family can certainly consist of a brother and sister living together with a grandmother. Or a married couple with a foster child. These are all normal variations of a family unit. And a couple without children certainly contributes to the building up of society.
What you are talking about though is two people of the same sex who are pretending to have a relationship that is attributed to a husband (male) and a wife (female) which they cannot possibly have by biological, physiological, emotional, physchological and spiritual criteria. I can go out and call a goose, a pig all I want, but it is still a goose, Josephine.
Janet: ya beat me to da punch. But that’s okaayyy!
Marriage is not a right. No one has a right to marriage just like people do not have the right to children. Marriage is a covenant between an man and a woman, freely entered into – a gift of ourselves to our spouse. Children are a gift from God.
“Really? Since when is marriage a RIGHT? Huh?”
Well the Supreme Court says it is:
Chief Justice Warren listed the “freedom to marry” as “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
Someday, the say will be said about restricting the rights of gay people. Someday.
Look up the definition of family if you’d like. Not one entry says anything about “man and woman”.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family
There you go. Annnnd, marriage is a RIGHT to US citizens. We’re not talking about religion! Marriage, to the US government, has NOTHING to do with religion. Satanists can get married, can’t they?? Janet, it’s not a stretch. The government doesn’t require people to follow a religion, so marriage in the US isn’t based on religion. ….What don’t you understand about that?
oh Hal, stop your whinning. No one tramples on the rights of same-sex attracted persons. In fact they hve more free speech rights than I do. Good grief. get over yourself…..
OMG! You guys are a bunch of bigots! Do you even know that?????
Patricia,
I’m not whining, I’m just hopeful for a time when love and understanding win over the hearts of men and women of good will.
Patricia,
I’m not whining, I’m just hopeful for a time when love and understanding win over the hearts of men and women of good will.
Posted by: Hal at November 12, 2008 6:16 PM
ya mean like when fathers and mothers stop killing their unborn babies, Hal?
Hmmm. Virginia K.
I am toying with deleting your comment.
You want to discuss then discuss. You want to do any more name calling then bye bye to your comments.
Why is it bigoted to explain ones own belief system?
na, don’t delete Carla. I’m not offended in the least…:-D
Carla, look up the definition of bigot.
I’m sorry, but bigotry is not okay. I teach my children this.
Why is it bigoted to explain ones own belief system?
Posted by: Carla at November 12, 2008 6:26 PM
because Carla, didn’t you know that Christianity is just a bigoted religion and belief system?
Okay Patricia, I’ll bite. Let’s look specifically at one of your comments then. You called homosexualtity a “deformed lifestyle”. That’s bigotry.
And thankfully society has moved, and contimues to move away from this form of bigotry.
not it’s not. Its a fact that the homosexual lifestyle is physically and mentally unhealthy. There are plenty of psychiatrists that believe so and have the clinical experience to back up that view. There are plenty of physicians who treat persons with same-sex attraction who know just how unhealthy their sex practices are.
Joesephine,
Marriage exists because people desire it and the community, working through the government, helps ensure that married couples are able to do what they need to in order to survive.
This is the most ridiculous part of the whole paragraph. Since when has the survival of a marriage depended on what government or the community does for the couple. LOL.
Isn’t someone who calls me a bigot, bigoted??
Carla,
Yes, I think so.
Takes one to know one. (Oh, did I just say that?) – Just kidding!
Carla,
I’ll go to my room, now…
:P
and don’t you DARE slam your door either Janet!
Lol @ Patricia: “not it’s not. Its a fact that the homosexual lifestyle is physically and mentally unhealthy. There are plenty of psychiatrists that believe so and have the clinical experience to back up that view. There are plenty of physicians who treat persons with same-sex attraction who know just how unhealthy their sex practices are.”
Uhm.. my mom is a dr. of Psychiatry. There are PLENTY of psychiatrists who disagree with homosexuality being a “disorder” or “unhealthy”, in fact, according to my mom, the gay patients she sees tend to talk about things like feeling like others hate them or think they’re disgusting and it makes them feel badly about themselves and their lifestyle. They’re not unhappy because of the lifestyle, but because of the reaction from others about the lifestyle.
And Janet, have you never heard of the government advantages of being married?
so what Josephine?
the majority of women’s doctors prescribe the pill for just about everything but that doesn’t mean their methodology represents “best practice” medicine.
Likewise for psychiatry. There are plenty of Catholic psychiatrists who do not encourage their patients to act out their same-sex attractions.
Does your mom ever pray with her patients?
Josephine, can you believe this? What planet do these women live on??????
I might ask the same of you Virginia K. Your discriminatory stance against heterosexual couples, opposite gender couples and Christianity is quite remarkable actually….
Virginia, I agree!
And Patricia, NO of COURSE my mom doesn’t pray with her patients. She’s not known as a Christian psychiatrist. She’s a psychiatrist. It’s a SCIENCE. She went to medical school and specialized in psychiatry. It’s about science. Finding problems and treating them.
I think you’re mixing up psychology and psychiatry. Just a thought.
It doesn’t sound like Virgina is discriminatory towards heterosexual couples to me.. unless you think saying heterosexual love is no different than homosexual love is discrimination…. which, it wouldn’t surprise me if you thought that Patricia.
funny I know of a psychiatrist (Catholic too) who prays with his patients. He feels that healing is both physical and spiritual. He too finds problems, but treats them both physically and spiritually.
Just a thought…..
there is no such thing as same-sex love – it is a disordered love. I’m sorry Josephine, we just don’t agree.
I don’t agree with your brand of Catholicism, nor with your ideas of love, marriage, sexuality, nor probably the way you will practice medicine.
You make me sad. Have a nice evening…
Patricia, that’s HILARIOUS! It might surprise you to know that I am a woman happily married to a man for the past 19 years. I’m a flaming heterosexual! But that doesn’t mean that I can’t understand nor do I feel threatened by the love and physical attraction between two men or two women. It is natural. Some people are born homosexual just as you and I were born heterosexual. To insult them by saying they live a “deformed lifestyle” is just plain wrong.
Josephine thank you for being a voice of reason and taking the time.
“THere is no such thing as same-sex love”????? Patricia, clearly you do not know a gay couple. I do. More than one. And I can honestly tell you, without a doubt, that their love is no less than the love I share with my husband or any other heterosexual couple I know share.
You are so wrong. And so hateful.
Patricia, if what you say about Catholic psychiatrists is true.. that means they’re pretty crappy psychiatrists for someone who isn’t religious. People go to psychiatrists for help. I’m very proud of both my parents. When you say he treats problems physically… what do you mean? Do you mean medically? I don’t understand how you would treat problems physically. (And, to be honest, most psychiatrists including my mom, believe you don’t “treat” people.)
There is no such thing as same-sex love? Oh my gosh. You must have a distorted view of love. Personally, I think it’s possible to love ANYone. No one can help who they fall in love with.
And as for you not agree with my brand of practicing medicine, I’m not even sure what that means. What in the world do personal views on gay marriage have to do with treating someone’s medical problems? That sounds bizarre.
Some people are born homosexual just as you and I were born heterosexual.
there is NO scientific basis for this statement. Please stop perpetrating this lie.
People with same-sex attraction would like us to believe this. It validates the way they feel and their lifestyle and perpetrates the myth that there is nothing they can do about it.
oh and by the way Viriginia, I don’t feel threatened by same-sex people, only by their attitude of intolerance towards people who are rational believing Christians as evidenced in CA this past week. If Christians has made the statements to the MSM that same-sex activists made, there would have been arrests and criminal charges of hate made.
———————————————–
I can honestly tell you, without a doubt, that their love is no less than the love I share with my husband or any other heterosexual couple I know share.
You are so wrong. And so hateful.
Posted by: Virginia K at November 12, 2008 8:52 PM
No Virginia their “love” or more accurately “attraction” is not at all the same as what a married couple experiences. It is not even a shadow of what a married couple can experience.
Secondly, I consider it hateful to keep perpetrating myths that not only harm people but spread intolerance towards marriage itself.
——————————————
No one can help who they fall in love with.
I’m sorry Josephine, but what utter “pap” you spout. Do you ever think for yourself or do you just regurgitate stuff you hear from the MSM? I mean this question in all honesty.
have a nice evening ladies!
Patricia I can’t beleive you are accusing gays of intolernace! Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
Once again, without knowing a gay couple personally and well enough to witness how they feel about it, how can you possibly dismiss what they feel.You know not of what you speak. And you are hateful. Shame on you.
“there is NO scientific basis for this statement.”
there is no evidence to the contrary eithe, patricia.
Once again, without knowing a gay couple personally and well enough to witness how they feel about it, how can you possibly dismiss what they feel.You know not of what you speak. And you are hateful. Shame on you.
Posted by: Virginia K at November 12, 2008 9:10 PM
oh please. Stop it with the dramatics Virginia.
I’m no more hateful towards same-sex attracted persons than you are towards people who are attracted to the opposite sex.
You know this but people like you enjoy accusing those of us who do not accept and will never accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle of hate. It’s the same argument proaborts use against prolifers – that we really don’t care about the women who are facing problem pregnancies.
The options you liberals offer both are contributors to the culture of death. The shame is on you.
I’m done with these circular attacks.
“Josephine, can you believe this? What planet do these women live on??????”
They live on planet earth but they are Godly women and not ashamed of it.
“I’m no more hateful towards same-sex attracted persons than you are towards people who are attracted to the opposite sex.”
Patricia, Virginia already stated she’s married to a man. Pro-life and anti-gay don’t go hand in hand.
josephine it is impossible to be prolife and pro-gay.
the same-sex lifestyle is NOT prolife!
WHAT! THAT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE.
They can’t even have babies to kill! Not being able to reproduce doesn’t mean you’re not pro-life. Does that mean straight people with reproduction problems aren’t pro-life either? I mean, they can’t reproduce…. or women that choose not to have children? They’re not pro-life either?
That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. PLEASE explain what in the world you’re talking about.
Holy crap Patricia you actually have got me laughing now, your statements are so ridiculous! And yet you really, really do think they make sense. I’m going to bed.
Good night Josephine. I’m so glad you were here tonight!
Sex between two people of the same gender is sterile. It is not life-giving by its very nature. It is not pro-life. Since the advent of the pill, the pro-creative aspect of sex as been divorced from the unitive and pleasurable aspect. If sex is viewed as simply an activity to be done for pleasure what is to prevent people from seeking that end with someone else of the same sex? It is the contraceptive mentality that has bought into the supposed validity of same sex unions.
anon is me — sorry!
Protecting marriage is not bigotry – it is not bigotry to say that homosexuals are misguided whether you agree with that point of view or not. It is not bigotry to act in the belief that one is protecting our families, our society, and our country.
It is bigotry to run around calling people names and making hysterical accusations about their motives based on nothing more concrete than the fact that their religious beliefs fail to correspond with your own.
This article covers a good portion of the argument for protecting marriage –
The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
P.S. Carla, you are right on target! That is precisely how many homosexuals view relationships and intimacy & why it is so clear that marriage is not what they’re really after. It’s about forcing society to give them the legitamacy they so desperately crave. But it changes very little for them, while radically changing things for society.
Grace,
You are so right — the only reason why gay activists want the “right” to marry is to force acceptance of their lifestyle on the rest of society. Even if they were able to, they still wouldn’t be happy because it is disordered.
How does gay marriage change society? Please, elaborate?
Josephine,
“Marriage exists because people desire it and the community, working through the government, helps ensure that married couples are able to do what they need to in order to survive.”
This is the most ridiculous part of the whole paragraph. Since when has the survival of a marriage depended on what government or the community does for the couple. LOL.
Posted by: Janet at November 12, 2008 7:20 PM
And Janet, have you never heard of the government advantages of being married?
Yes, but survival of the marriage is not dependent on these advantages.
the only reason why gay activists want the “right” to marry is to force acceptance of their lifestyle on the rest of society.
Do people really believe this? This is stunning to me. Gay people are just people like you. Really, we are. I grew up wanting a wedding and a marriage and to be a wife just like every other little girl. I don’t have some nefarious plan to change the world from under you. Why would you assume my reasons for getting married would be any different from yours?
Thank God, someone who can speak from a different point of view!
Here is an excerpt from Susan Brinkmann’s article, “Same Sex Unions: Whose Minding the Children”
But aside from these developmental and psychological effects, there are also significant peripheral issues that come with same-sex parents that place additional risks upon children. For instance, the ramifications of the health risks outlined in Part 3 of this series and concerns about the stability of the relationship.
The breakdown of marriage in America has already had devastating effects on society, especially on children, without delivering yet another blow to this most fundamental structure of society by eliminating it entirely. If heterosexual marriage is protected, children will at least have the benefits of its stabilizing influence in their surrounding familial relationships.
This is why Satinover stresses that society’s compelling interest is to ensure not only the mere propagation of the species but humankind’s well-being too, which is the whole purpose of heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is a societal structure and without it, society crumbles.
And yet this is precisely what the courts are about to do. “And they’re going to do it without any impact studies,” Satinover said.
The same courts that demand multi-million dollar environmental studies before allowing someone to so much as dig a hole in the ground “are going to massively reshape the social landscape” without a single study being conducted. And it will do so in spite of mountains of empirical evidence showing the negative effects on society that occur when the family structure breaks down.
The second point against homosexual marriage is that it doesn’t just create a second societal structure, it actually “smuggles into existence … two radically different social structures,” Satinover explained.
There are same-sex marriages between two women and between two men. “They have utterly different demographics, life spans, health and behavioral characteristics, and sexual behaviors. … They are as different from one another as men are from women. If you were to create gay marriage, you end up with three totally different marital entities.” We would have heterosexual marriage, female gay marriage and male gay marriage. This new set of marital structures will, in turn, produce three new classes of children.
“This third point ties the first two together,” Satinover said. “We know that motherlessness has a different impact on children than fatherlessness does. Therefore, we have every reason to expect that children raised in female unions will turn out to have a different set of problems than those raised in motherless unions. These children will be different from children raised in heterosexual unions. So we will create three different classes of children.”
(Dr. Jeffrey Satinover is with Princeton U.)
Eileen, those didn’t answer Wendy’s questions. I’m so interested in what you have to say to her. A real person, not a hypothetical one.
I was trying to point out the impact of same sex marriage on society…
Yeah, I’ve heard your argument and gave up on it. But now someone who is actually facing the issue is asking, “Why would you assume my reasons for getting married would be any different from yours?”
I don’t question that people with same sex attraction are looking for love. It is just that the love that they need or want is not going to be found in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex.
Josephine, your arguments aren’t convincing either.
My argument that love is equal and that legally, marriage has nothing to do with religion? Those seem convincing to me.
Why are you bringing religion into it — the state doesn’t recognize the validity of marriage based on religion — only that it is a contract between a man and a woman.
I’m tired! Goodnight.
Wendy,
Deciding things based on emotion only works out happily ever after in Disney movies. It has nothing to do with sympathy or empathy – or rather it should not. I do have compassion for those who are struggling with this problem, but the decision needs to be based on reason.
I have known several people who are homosexual & counted one in particular as a good friend. The past tense is not because I ceased to be friends with him, but because he died of AIDS not many years after “coming out”.
His life – and death – testify to what studies are showing – homosexuality is a very unhealthy lifestyle both for the individual and for society.
While I do sympathize with your desire to have the trappings of a normal lifestyle, they are only “wrapping paper”. You can have a marriage ceremony & a white dress & whatever you are able to work out with whoever agrees to go thru the motions.
But can you be a wife to another woman in reality? Only by changing the definition of the word – but then the word loses its meaning so you still won’t have it.
It’s a bit like a woman saying “I want to be a father!” We can play word games & affirm her in her father-like-ness attempts, but she will never really be a father even if we call her one.
If you go back & look at what I wrote, I made it clear that I was generalizing which is why I used words like “many” and “most” rather than “all” or “every”. Of course there are exceptions, but exceptions don’t make the rule.
This was not based on my personal opinion or even on anecdotal stories like yours, but on studies that have shown that most homosexuals have no interest in being “married” in the first place. (Anecdotally, my deceased friend was certainly one of those)
I will also add anecdotally that I have yet to encounter anyone who is advocating for marriage that was not arguing for “equal” rights and “civil” rights. Which is kind of farcical since you have the same right to marry a man as any other woman – and I am denied the right to marry another woman just as you. ;-)
If it was just about marriage ceremonies, there are many churches & civil service officials who will perform these. But that’s not enough because it’s about getting the government to sanction it & thereby forcing society not only to accept it but to support it. One has only to look north to Canada to see how this government sanction will be used to discriminate against those who refuse to agree that evil is good and good is evil.
If that were not the case, then you would be satisfied with a ceremony & a civil union as proof of your lifelong monogamous commitment to your partner with all the legal rights that you wish to share. But that is not enough.
Never mind the Founding Fathers’ effort to secure freedom from discrimination based on one’s religion – discrimination based on how one has sex is far more important. Once we start granting rights based on how people have sex, things are really going to go insane.
After all, should we agree with you, then what is wrong with polygamy? Pederasty? Bestiality? Incest?
Eileen I’m not really sure how to respond to the passage from the article. The reality is that right now we have huge numbers of children that are coming from single parent homes. We don’t actually treat them or even conceive of them as different ‘classes’ of children due to their parents’ situation. So I’m not sure why the author of this article would think that that would change with the advent of gay marriage.
I am sorry that you think so little of the relationships that I have had with people of the same sex. I have also had relationships with men (well, one relationship with a man) and all I can tell you is that the love and fulfillment I experience are just the same. Certainly men and women have their differences but the love and work and cooperation and compromise of a relationship does not feel any different to me. So I hope that helps explain why your opinion about where I can and can’t find love is baffling to me.
One final point is that, while culturally (and for me, personally) we value marriages based on love, we do not legally require love in a marriage. Therefore, people’s opinions about whether the union is ‘really love’ or ‘the right kind of love’ or anything else isn’t actually a reason to deny that couple marriage.
Grace,
I agree that we can’t make arguments based on anecdotal evidence. Arguing that we can deny benefits to a group of people because we believe “most” members of the group “have no interest” in it falls into this category. We are discussing granting the benefits to the people who do want it.
As an aside I wanted to quickly address your comment regarding homosexuality and HIV. I just wanted to make sure you knew there is nothing inherently gay about that particular virus. It’s a communicable disease and so whichever population has it is the population where it will exist. As a parallel, you might think about how rampant HPV is among heterosexuals. The same way you think “ick! gay men’s sexual practices spread disease!” is exactly the way that *I* sometimes think about heterosexual sex!
I can accept that you don’t accept the premise of a wife being a wife to another woman. I do think that a wife can have a wife, and I guess it would be nice if you agreed with me, but it’s not really important to me personally and I don’t think it’s really necessary to change everyone’s minds on this point.
It is unclear to me from your last few paragraphs whether you support same sex civil unions or not. In one paragraph you condemn the idea of government sanctioning and supporting gay marriage and in the next you suggest that gay people can have a civil union with all the legal rights. So I’m not really sure whether you think they’re ok or not. I’m ok with them. I’m also ok with churches refusing to perform gay marriages, should they become legal. I don’t believe that in the US the government can force churches to perform or recognize marriages. Can’t the Catholic church refuse to marry non-Catholics? If they can bar Protestants from marrying in their church I don’t see why the couldn’t bar gay marriages too. I just dont’ see the problem there.
With regard to ‘granting’ rights, I don’t believe that the government grants them. I believe, as I think most Americans do, that rights are ours inherently, and the onus is on the government to show why they would need to restrict them. So the argument of “where in the Constitution do you see the right to gay marriage?” isn’t sensical to me. The Constitution does not enumerate the rights of the people. (Note I’m not claiming you made this argument. I’ve just heard it thrown around before.)
Out of curiosity:
Do you agree with the Brown v. Board of Education SCOTUS decision? Do you think it applies to gay marriage / civil unions?
Would you support an elimination of the word ‘marriage’ from all government? For example, some people propose that governments only deal in civil unions, and marriage would be the exclusive domain of the church. Other people suggest that government ignore unions entirely and treat all people as individuals with no special benefits for unions. Again in this scenario churches would of course be free to perform whatever marriage ceremonies they chose. Do either of these seem like feasible solutions?
Thanks for reading — wow I really only meant to make that one first comment! I’ll try to break up my posts more in the future…
Whew!
Wendy,
There is no such thing as gay marriage. It doesn’t matter how many times you or MSM use the term. Mariage is between a man and a woman. Why do homosexuals find it so difficult to understand that the relationship between a man and a woman is unique and that union is called marriage. Now, since homosexuals you can’t by definition be the union of a man and a woman, pick out your own name for your union and get on with it. Why do you feel a need to insist on changing the definition of marriage?
Oh, and church marriage is the union of a man, a woman, and God. And the God of the Bible created them man and woman and the two become one flesh to share in God’s creative power to make babies. That’s unique too.
“the love and work and cooperation and compromise of a relationship does not feel any different to me.”
Wendy at November 13, 2008 12:07 AM
Wendy,
There are two sexs of human. Male and female.
I had a loving, working, compromising relationship with my same sex roommate in college. It was just a decision we made based on our mutual love for music and compatible personalities. But we never considered it to be a marriage. And we never felt any sexual attraction for one another. And why should we? God made us amn and woman so that twe could unite in sexual intercourse and join together in an act that could grace with a child and allow us to share in God’s creative power. If you see sex as something other than that then a guess a same sex partner could get you off if that is all sex is to you, but you can;t deny that homosexuals are NOT able to share in the reason/purpose God gave you your sexual organs. And as in sex, men and women compliment one another in many other ways because God desogned us differently. Again, there are two distict types of human regardless of race or nationality and they are man and woman. Understand that fundamental concept and accept that marriage is defined by the complimentarity of the sexes and therefore something that same sex partners cannot have by definition. Why do you insist on saying that heterosexual couples should not be allowed to define themselves differently than homosexual couples. It seems really bizarre why some hoimosexuals are crazed to change the definition of marriage as if they need it in order to justify that they are somehow the same as heterosexual relationships. It would be like a woman insisting on competing for the title of
Mr. America… wouldn’t that be ludicrous?
Answer….yes it would be ludicrous because men and women are different. So men and women ahve always and, and deserve, a unique institution to define and recognize their union. If homosexuals want something special to recognize their union then come up with your own unique instition to define homosexual relationships and quit trying to pretend they are the SAME as heterosexual relationships. Sheesh
Wendy,
I am well acquainted with HIV. Several of the patients at the VA where I did an internship were dealing with the end stage results. STD’s are beyond icky; they are tragic. Yes, HIV qualifies as an STD (even though that’s not the only mode of transmission), but it is largely a homosexual STD because of the blood-blood mode of transmission.
That is a large part of the reason why homosexual behavior is so unhealthy – because they have sex in ways for which the human body was not designed. The majority engage in anal sex which exposes them to “encounters” that the genitalia were never designed to withstand. This is also a population which regularly engages in high risk behaviors like “casual” sex and multiple partners. STD’s are a product of non-monogamous relationships. Yet another reason for the government to encourage & support traditional marriage.
As for the rest, we are discussing rearranging the structure of society by granting benefits to people who not only don’t naturally produce healthy, well adjusted citizens (some of the most heart-wrenching arguments that I have read against this come from children raised by homosexual parents), but are actually very costly to the government because of their high risk lifestyle. It’s a bit like smokers demanding that the government subsidize their habit.
I was not supporting civil unions in my response, but pointing out that these activist homosexuals are not satisfied with being given ceremonies & legal rights, but are going full press for “marriage”. That is what makes it clear that there is more to this issue than simply wedding gowns & equal legal rights. They want to recreate marriage in their own image, so to speak. Interestingly, Elton John actually criticized the No on prop.8 crowd for this.
Whatever you’re okay with is nice, but unfortunately you don’t & can’t speak for all, & as I pointed out, our neighbors in Canada (& several in Europe for that matter) have already proven that the churches will not be respected or left alone.
Pastors have been threatened with jail for preaching what’s in the Bible. Even in our own country, there is some loon suing a Bible publisher for his distress because it says that God is not okay with homosexuality. Now the No on prop.8 crowd is actually attacking Mormon churches for the heinous act of using the democratic process of our country to disagree with them. (Goodness knows, the Catholic Church has endured its share of malice from the “tolerance” crowd – like the incident at Mass in St. Patrick’s Cathedral years ago)
No, they have already proven that they want to silence & persecute those who dare to disagree. And they want to use our tax-payer funded public schools to teach our children that not only are their parents hateful & bigoted, but so is the religion in which they are being raised.
I support that marriage remain what it is & always has been. At this point, I don’t really like how civil unions are being used (examples available upon request – this is long enough already), so I am leaning toward the proposed idea of creating a new form of legal binding that would allow any one person, to give any other one person many of the expansive rights that marriage allows.
For example, two widowed sisters living together could sign a simple one or two page contract (instead of getting a lawyer) that would give them all the extra rights that are normally provided for only in marriage. This would allow them rights to the others property, signing legal documents, etc.etc.
A homosexual couple could also use this contract, however, no homosexual couple would be given any “special” treatment that any other two citizens could not enter into as well. No one group of Americans (i.e. homosexuals) should be given “rights” at the expense of another group of Americans (i.e. religious believers) – Canada has already demonstrated the impossibility of attempting this kind of schizophrenic governance. And as you state, marriage is not exactly a Constitutional issue, however, most would agree that it is a moral one & so – as with all “legislating morality” issues – it comes down to which morality is to the benefit of the state & which is not. There really is no reason why homosexuality should be supported by our government.
I agree Grace. Such a contract would need to be available to all unmarried citizens including unmarried heterosexual couples or it would be discriminatory.
Eileen,
Very good. You understand the issue very well. God love you.
“Eileen I’m not really sure how to respond to the passage from the article. The reality is that right now we have huge numbers of children that are coming from single parent homes. We don’t actually treat them or even conceive of them as different ‘classes’ of children due to their parents’ situation. So I’m not sure why the author of this article would think that that would change with the advent of gay marriage.”
Wendy,
That was only part of the article, it would probably be best to read it in its entirety. The point is that it is not just about same sex marriage. Once it is sanctioned by the government then same sex couples will demand that society accept their “right” to raise children. Studies have shown that children benefit most when raised by a father and a mother. There is a whole dynamic involved there that is just too detailed to get into here. I suggest that you google Susan Brinkmann and Richard Fitzgibbons (he is a doctor of psychiatry).
Everyone desires to love and to be loved. That desire is given by God and its ultimate end should be in God. To seek an intimacy through sex with another person of the same sex is disordered. Dr. Fitzgibbons talks about the causes of same sex attraction.
Thanks, Bobby. Most of what I have learned has been through programming on EWTN. This topic is always approached with sensitivity and compassion by those professionals, etc that discuss it. They want people to be healed, made “whole” and find peace.
Holy crap Patricia you actually have got me laughing now, your statements are so ridiculous! And yet you really, really do think they make sense. I’m going to bed.
Good night Josephine. I’m so glad you were here tonight!
Posted by: Virginia K at November 12, 2008 10:01 PM
Your views are highly irrational V. How is helping someone live the homosexual lifestyle prolife? Because you are helping them do what THEY want? Even if that lifestyle has been proven to be a very destructive lifestyle? Do not see what the “gay” parades represent? Do you think this is just the aberrant part of the movement? This is what they would LIKE you to believe. It helps them push their agenda onto the rest of society. Have you read ANY accounts of children who have grown up in same-sex attracted household and understood the angst of these children?
You can hardly expect same-sex couples to be prolife in the sense that their unnatural union is not life affirming and they can never beget children. They can pretend to have children through IVF, but this again is a distortion.
Prolife means being open to life. The homosexual lifestyle is anything but this. It brings death in a myriad of ways to those who participate.
Your views don’t make me laugh V, they make me cry.
wonder what Josephines mom thinks of Dr. Fitzgibbons. No doubt she’ll blow him off too.
You are correct Eileen, same-sex attraction needs to be treated with compassion and dignity. But at the same time, things have gone much to far to the point that now “normal” is considered hateful and intolerant.
Grace,
Thanks for responding. I will say that it seems we have slightly different interpretations as to what the government’s role ought to be. I am on principle in favor of limited government. I don’t believe we are meant to enact laws based upon the desired end result, but rather that laws are meant to protect our inherent rights of freedom and autonomy and the end result will be what it will. This does mean that laws designed to ‘protect the fabric of society’ are not ones I would support no matter how much agreed with the end result.
The point of this little aside is just to say that I don’t think an argument about what ‘the majority’ does is a valid argument. Even if what the majority of a group does is something that we think is destructive, that doesn’t mean that the group itself can be legislated against. You would have to go after the actually destructive element, or you would be infringing on the rights of the minority who do belong in that group but do not participate in the actually destructive part.
As an analogy, I live in MA where we recently had a ballot question that would prohibit the racing of dogs. The argument in favor of this question was “the majority of racing dogs are abused.” I am an animal lover and while the thought of an abused greyhound is heartbreaking and despicable to me, I could not vote in favor of this question. I don’t believe that abuse is inherent in dog racing. They are two separate things that seem to have a high incidence of occurrence. So if animal abuse is the target, the animal rights activists need to be pushing for laws against the abuse itself, and ways to enforce those laws — not outlawing racing entirely which puts unnecessary restrictions on dog racers who do not abuse their animals.
So to bring this point home — it sounds like you object to anal sex with HIV infected partners because it places a health care cost on the government and therefore the tax payers. Whatever the merits of that position, it is not an argument against gay marriage because anal sex with HIV infected partners is not an inherent part of gay marriage. In fact in the case of lesbians it is considerably less of an option than it is with heterosexuals :) Anyway I hope that explains why arguments about what ‘the majority’ does aren’t arguments to enact restrictions for all.
I realize I’ve only responded to a tiny bit of your post but I’ve got to go to work now…
Quick question:
I don’t know anything about Canadian government. Do they have a freedom of religion enshrined in their system of laws? It seems like they must not, if they are requiring churches to bless marriages against the will of the church. That would be so clearly against our Constitution.
Patricia,
In one of his articles regarding same sex attraction, he discusses same sex attraction and narcissism. Examples of people with both are the gay activists who display their “gayness” in vulgar ways in parades, protests, etc. They are only interested in the sex as an end in itself — they are the ones who push for sex with members of the same sex at any age,among some things. I posted an excerpt from an article that quotes two men (I think — Kirk and Madsen) on another thread, who have written a book that is more or less a gay activist’s manual. One of their tactics is to accuse anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle as being “homophobic”. They try to shut down any reasonable debate on the topic.
As far as people with same sex attraction without the narcissism, it appears to be a result, in general, of a lack of intimacy in familial relationships, among other things. It is complicated and psychiatrists are beginning to speak out in the need to address it with more research.
Why is it such a big deal to change the definition of a word? Instead of it being a union between a man and a woman, it would be a union between two people. You do realize California did have legalized gay marriage. Did it affect YOUR life at all? Because it didn’t affect me.
Patricia, I’m going to guess my mom would think that Dr. is an idiot. She once compared Dr.s trying to treat being gay as Dr.s trying to treat down syndrome. It’s part of the genetic make-up.
Eileen, why SHOULD anyone have to defend their lifestyle? Why does gay marriage effect you? You can go ahead and say all you want “Well, it’s a disorder.. I’m helping” but guess what? Not allowing gays to get married is just ticking them off, it’s not turning them hetero!
We change the definition of marriage all the time. It is now a volunatary union of two people, there was a time when a girls parents had more of a say in her “decision.” It once allowed for more than one wife (and still does in other countries). We have changed the age where marriage is permissible. We have changed the rules about cousins marrying. We have changed the rule that you’d have to be of the same race. Divorce was once not permitted, or permitted only with very different procedures.
I started to comment to you Hal and then I realized that I haven’t the time nor the energy to hop on the merry go round. :)
i know the feeling. Let’s drop it.
Only if I get to be the one to say Let’s drop it.
you’ve got a deal. Have a wonderful day.
One of their tactics is to accuse anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle as being “homophobic”. They try to shut down any reasonable debate on the topic.
@Eileen: Absolutely true. This is also done by people who don’t hold religious values as worthwhile. They accuse us of framing the debate in a reference they won’t relate to, thus also shutting down debate. If you turn the tables on these people and tell them you require them to debate on your terms, they simply won’t. Be we Christians are always making accomodations for aethists etc. And we always lose. Maybe it’s because there is a God and he does matter in these discussions.
Patricia, I’m going to guess my mom would think that Dr. is an idiot. She once compared Dr.s trying to treat being gay as Dr.s trying to treat down syndrome. It’s part of the genetic make-up.
Pardonnez-moi, but this is pure, unadulterated bull$hit. Your mother knows it as do most medical experts. A gay gene has never been found.
Eileen, why SHOULD anyone have to defend their lifestyle?
Because some things are just wrong, Josephine. Period. The homosexual lifestyle is one of them.
Because some things are just wrong, Josephine. Period. The homosexual lifestyle is one of them.
Posted by: Patricia at November 13, 2008 1:11 PM
Not sure what you mean by “lifestyle.” If a gay couple lives a more traditional “lifestyle” but are still gay, is that okay?
“Pardonnez-moi, but this is pure, unadulterated bull$hit. Your mother knows it as do most medical experts. A gay gene has never been found.”
Lol. Oh Patricia! Many medical experts do believe being gay is something a person is BORN with and there’s no way to “fix” it.. unless a person is “gay” for attention and claimed they were “cured”… or a person is gay and claim to be “cured” when really they’re just fighting who they are. That’s why most psychiatrists don’t TREAT homosexuality. That’s ridiculous!
for Josephine and her mom:
For instance, consider the gay gene. Almost everyone believes it exists. Homosexuals were “born that way,” right?
Not according to the science. Once inside the venerated halls of disciplined study, one discovers the radical truth — there is no gay gene.
However, in the absence of actual discovery, newspaper headlines frequently allude to the unfound gene in ways that make it sound real. Consider the October, 2003 Reuters headlines “Sexual Identity Hard-Wired by Genetics.” The title sounds much more convincing than the actual facts, even though the article opens with the statement, “Sexual identity is wired into the genes, which discounts the concept that homosexuality and transgender sexuality is a choice. …” Not until one reads the article does one realize that the headline and opening sentence have absolutely nothing to do with the study being reported.
In reality, the story is about a University of California, Los Angeles, study of the developmental differences between male and female brains. According to Ray Waller of the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH) the study did nothing more than confirm what had already been known to science, that genes play a role in creating differences between male and female brains. The lead researcher, Dr. Eric Valain, said, “This is not about finding the gay gene.” In fact, the word homosexuality is not even mentioned in the study.
News services echoed Reuters, most of them omitting one of the most salient facts about the study — it was conducted on mice.
“There is no animal model that accurately reflects human sexuality,” said Dr. A. Dean Byrd of NARTH. “Pigs don’t date, ducks don’t go to church, and mice don’t fall in love.”
Where rumors start, the truth departs, but it is not irretrievable.
from Susan Brinkmann, “The Truth about Homosexuality, the Phantom Gene”
Ooops — it should be “Homosexuality: the Untold Story”
Lol. Oh Patricia! Many medical experts do believe being gay is something a person is BORN with and there’s no way to “fix” it.. unless a person is “gay” for attention and claimed they were “cured”… or a person is gay and claim to be “cured” when really they’re just fighting who they are. That’s why most psychiatrists don’t TREAT homosexuality. That’s ridiculous!
Posted by: Josephine at November 13, 2008 1:31 PM
no most psychiatrists don’t treat same-sex attracted persons because it is ideologically incorrect to do so. Ideology has taken precedence over medicine in the same way that it has hijacked stem cell research.
Eileen#2 It doesn’t matter how many resources you quote nor how authoritative they might be. You are talking to a wall. What we have here is a young supposedly “Catholic” woman, completely indoctrinated in secular humanisim and who has shed virtually every ounce of Catholic teaching in the areas of morality and ethics. Josephine, this is simply my observation based on your posts. I pray you will come to understand your faith as you grow older and see that Catholic teaching has the fullness of truth within it.
Patricia, Eileen: both of my parents went to medical school. I’m guessing they know more about the science aspects of it then you do. I don’t recall saying “gay gene” so don’t put words in my mouth. However, I did say it was part of the genetic make-up. Studies HAVE shown that there are certain parts of the brain that seem to work differently in the minds of gay people. That’s how even VERY young kids know they’re gay. (Even though they may not know what “gay” is.) Does that mean there is something wrong with this people? Nope. It just means their brains are different. They’re still totally regular.
Eileen, frankly I’m not sure what that article had to do with.. anything.
Jo: you have NO idea what you are talking about. I’m guessing you don’t even know how children develop sexually…. puzzled, really I’m quite puzzled by you……
OMG Patricia… ideology has taken over medicine and science????? You are whack girl! Where do you get this stuff? I’m sorry but there is no way to be respectful about such utter crap!
When you said “born gay” or words to that effect — I assumed that you were using that fallacious “gene” argument.
Oh, Patricia. Some Catholic churches have accepted homosexuality. But you call these churches wrong, and not-Catholic. …do you still go to a mass where you have to face backwards, and the entire mass is delivered in a foreign language? If not, then there are some people that would say YOU’RE not Catholic (dun dun dun).
Patricia, you’re obviously an unaccepting person. You want to follow God’s teachings only sometimes. God also says you shouldn’t judge, you should love your neighbors.. well, I don’t see you do those things. You, apparently, think you know which of God’s rules are worth following.
Eileen, I see where you thought I meant that and I understand why you posted that now.
Patricia, “Jo: you have NO idea what you are talking about. I’m guessing you don’t even know how children develop sexually…. puzzled, really I’m quite puzzled by you……” LOLOLOLOL Patricia. You’re hilarious. I’m sure you’re an expert on sexuality. Most super-uptight-Christian ISN’T an expert on sexuality. ….that was sarcasm, by the by. You’re hilarious. :)
THE Catholic Church does not accept homosexuality. It does not consider “homosexual tendencies” sinful as long as they are not acted upon. It does not consider the homosexual lifestyle normal.
In fact the Vatican, just this week has ruled out the priesthood for those men with even same-sex attraction.
BTW, same-sex attraction is considered a psycho-sexual disorder by Catholic psychiatrists.
You want to follow God’s teachings only sometimes.
no, dear, that’s your line, not mine!
oh my goodness, this is too unbelievable! I’m reading a wonderful book on modesty by Wendy Shalit. She mentions how all the children who have been through sex ed feel they are SOOOO uninhibited. You proved her point, before my very eyes! Sweet!
Yes, SOME Catholic churches do. Churches that are accepted by the Pope. Maybe you should research before you just say random things… just a thought?
AND Catholic Psychiatrists is just a ridiculous category. My mom is Catholic and a psychiatrist. Not a Catholic psychiatrist. You DO NOT bring religion into treating MEDICAL problems. Again, I’m wondering if you mean psychologist??? It’s funny that you think because a tiny group of Catholic psychiatrists made up a disorder that it’s real.. when many psychiatrists don’t believe it and won’t condone it.
Josephine,
The difference is that we can show official documents from issued by the Vatican which allow the mass to be celebrated with the priest facing the people. This would be in one of the documents of the second Vatican council and GIRM, I believe (I’d have to look it up). However, there is no official document issued by the Holy See in Rome that allows for homosexual marriage or homosexual activity. People can claim whatever they want. Let the sedevacantists claim that Pius V said in his 1570 encyclical Quo Primum that the mass could never be changed by anyone ever again. It is not the role of the laity to interpret magisterial teaching. So “latin” mass and acceptance of homosexual behaviour is not taught by the official Roman Catholic church which is headed in Rome. I mean, that’s it. This is what being Catholic is about. Submitting yourself to higher teaching authority. Using your intellect to discern that this is the church founded by Jesus Christ, and humbly obeying it. God love you.
Josephine,
So your parents went to med school– well so did some these people that I have been quoting. You won’t look beyond your own ideology to give some serious consideration to anything beyond what you and your parents want to believe.
It is Christian charity to point out wrongdoing. One is to judge actions not the state of someone’s soul. Patricia is not judging the state of anyone’s soul here.
Do you think that you could try to discuss things with some civility instead of regressing into insults?
….Patricia. You’re the most ridiculous person I’ve ever met. It’s funny, to make a generalization about “ALL” the children. Hmm..
By the way, thanks for putting the name of the author. She has a BA in PHILOSOPHY. … sounds like a very knowledgeable source. (You can’t see me roll my eyes, but trust me, I’m doing it.)
what’s wrong with a BA in philosophy Josephine. So you think doctors have the corner on truth?
Josephine please cite a Vatican issued document that PROVES that the Catholic Church has stated that it is morally fine to engage in a homosexual lifestyle. Since you made this claim, you prove it.
RELIGION doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with medicine. You can’t say “Catholic psychiatrists” think it’s a disorder. CATHOLIC psychiatrists think that because they’re taught homosexuality is wrong. NOT because of research, or what they’d done in school. How can you not see that? My mother has NEVER worked with another doctor that thought that homosexuality was a disorder. If those Catholic psychiatrists want to work with ONLY Catholic patients– fine. But it won’t fly with the general population and it’s making many colleagues lose respect for these “catholic psychiatrists”.
“In fact the Vatican, just this week has ruled out the priesthood for those men with even same-sex attraction. ”
Oh man, I didn’t know this. Do you have a link Patricia? I was hoping that they wouldn’t come do on this side; that they would allow it, but like I said above, now that I see what they have ruled on, I will submit myself to their teaching authority, regardless of how I feel about it. That really is the idea of Catholicism, Josephine. I know a lot of these teachings are difficult to accept, but maybe think about this from that point of view. Maybe pray on it and see if God is asking you to give all your worries and concerns up to him. I don’t want to fight with you. Just some things to consider if you wish. God love you.
On the contrary, Josephine, they are doing research and some are not even Catholic.
AGAIN:
Josephine please cite a Vatican issued document that PROVES that the Catholic Church has stated that it is morally fine to engage in a homosexual lifestyle. Since you made this claim, you prove it.
“Yes, SOME Catholic churches do. Churches that are accepted by the Pope. ”
Patricia, I wish you’d start reading. I never claimed anything of what you said. My church, for example, is accepted by the Pope. My priest? Doesn’t oppose gay marriage. In fact, he’s against marriage being denied to homosexuals. Did I say the Pope agrees with this teaching? Nope, never said that. Do I still go to a Catholic church that is accepted by the Pope? Yup, sure do.
Patricia: You didn’t even allow four minutes for me to answer your questions. (look at the times) CALM DOWN. I’m at school in-between classes right now. I’m also talking to real-life people.
Bobby: I understand where you’re coming from completely. I have thought about it a lot, but because I truly believe people are born gay, I also truly believe God accepts them no matter what. I mean, if a person is born gay.. I’m not sure a loving-God would want to punish that person. Do you understand what I mean? I understand the church’s point of view, and I understand where people are coming from that support that point of view. I just think that it’s not right to make people feel badly, and I don’t think it’s right to deny marriage to gay people when.. well, any straight person can get married.. no matter what the reason. I mean, people get married just to get green cards! Do you know what I mean?
It is so rich .. the Catholic church, the same church whose priests have abused young boys in cities and towns across the nation and whose cardinals and bishops protected these predators and enabled this to abuse continue, is saying that a love shared between two grown men or two grown women is wrong.
Where is the sense? Where is the compassion? Where is the humanity? Where is the goodness and truth in all of that?
“…I will submit myself to their teaching authority, regardless of how I feel about it. That really is the idea of Catholicism,”
Bobby, thanks for writing this. I cannot imagine giving up my duty to “question authority” to any organization, but it does help explain things.
That can’t, literally, be your view. If the church somehow would say legal abortion is okay, would you submit yourself to their teaching authority, or would you say, “no, that’s wrong.”
Virginia,
I’m not quite sure how the grievous sins of some in the Church have anything to do with supporting same sex marriage.
“Do I still go to a Catholic church that is accepted by the Pope? Yup, sure do.”
If the Pope was aware that your priest supported same sex marriage, he would correct him. I’m not sure what you mean by your church being accepted by the Pope.
Actually, it is up to your bishop to correct him if he is aware but since you made the reference to the Pope….
Josephine please cite a Vatican issued document that PROVES that the Catholic Church has stated that it is morally fine to engage in a homosexual lifestyle. Since you made this claim, you prove it.
“Yes, SOME Catholic churches do. Churches that are accepted by the Pope. ”
Patricia, I wish you’d start reading. I never claimed anything of what you said. My church, for example, is accepted by the Pope. My priest? Doesn’t oppose gay marriage. In fact, he’s against marriage being denied to homosexuals. Did I say the Pope agrees with this teaching? Nope, never said that. Do I still go to a Catholic church that is accepted by the Pope? Yup, sure do.
Posted by: Josephine at November 13, 2008 2:25 PM
Popes don’t “accept churches or parishes”. You must know that the POPE is not privy to the day-to-day goings on of individual parishes. Priests and laity are expected to follow church teaching. It is the laity’s responsibility to STUDY and KNOW church teaching and not rely solely on a priest for guidance. We cannot knowingly follow teachings, even by a priest, that we know to be contrary to the Church’s. This is a very good reason to own a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Eileen #2,
I guess we had the same idea. :)
The Roman Catholic Psychiatrist
by Luz G. Gabriel, M.D.
Introduction
The psychiatrist who is zealous for the Catholic Faith, obedient to the Church’s Magisterium and earnest in the support of traditional family values sees in bold relief the reciprocal relationship and the common relevance of Roman Catholicism, the family and the medical science of psychiatry.I write from my own personal impressions and clinical experience; my training in child psychiatry and family
therapy has intensified my staunch conviction that interviewing the family members of any particular patient, child or adult, contribute
to an understanding of family psychodynamics. On another and a more elevated level, the discovery of the richness of the Catholic Faith and the examples of the saints expanded my outlook and augmented my therapeutic armamentarium.
The Catholic psychiatrist has numerous opportunities to induce others to the virtuous life, and to evangelize. The amassed myriad pieces of knowledge of the Catechism or of the chronicles of holy men and women, fortunately, are stored in the memory bank of the brain, (the
hippocampus) and spring to life in definitive recollections, and are used in concrete events of a patient’s life. This article will focus
on three key items: (1) some vital concepts of the traditional family; (2) an overlooked technique or approach in clinical practice;
and (3) the wisdom of Catholic precepts.
The Family
Traditionally, the family is viewed as the basic social and cultural unit crucial to the survival of the human race. The family starts with the marriage of two opposite sexes, a man and a woman, in a lifelong holy bond, a sacrament instituted by Christ Himself at the wedding feast in Canal The Church’s esteem for the family is envisioned in these metaphors: the family as the most complete school of humanity, a domestic church, a fountainhead of sanctity and the of the world. Pope John Paul II reiterates that “the future of mankind passes through the human family.” In an
increasingly secular world we need the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium and the Holy Father as the families we treat contend with formidable choices and confront divorce, abortion on demand, violence, homicide, suicide, euthanasia and many other social ills. Truly, life has become cheap while truth and morals are no longer absolute, but relative. The world is tottering on the brink of self-destruction. Indeed, our Holy Father sums up the contemporary scene in his apt comment, “We have become a culture of death, not a civilization of love and life.”
In family therapy, the psychiatrist evaluates the essential family functions of problem-solving, communication, affective involvement,
autonomy and role definition. He must unravel the roots of marital conflicts and motivate the couple to give up sinful habits for reciprocal satisfaction and fulfillment.
Psychiatry And Religion
As a medical discipline, psychiatry delves into the genetic and biochemical etiology of brain disorder; as such its practitioners prescribe neuroleptics, antidepressants and other psychopharmacologic agents which potently alleviate suffering and normalize mental
functioning-albeit appropriately, and competently. Some psychiatrists specialize in group therapy or individual counseling. The
aforementioned are modes of treatment on the biological and natural level.
Religion and mental illness, many a time, intertwine; this bare fact becomes clear as we skim over a brief historical profile of the
medical specialty of psychiatry. It is roughly categorized into three overlapping periods beginning at the dawn of human history. For the
first 1800 years A.D., sickness of the mind was baffling, inexplicable and mysterious. Then, psychiatry was not a medical specialty. Theories of mental diseases commixed with philosophy and
religious beliefs. Often the causation was ascribed to evil spirits or divine chastisement; remedial steps were, repeatedly, inhumane,
and the patients, stigmatized. With the outset of the second phase, circa. 180 years ago, the field of psychiatry became more cohesive
and comprehensible. This ushered in humane reforms in the then so-called “hospitals for the insane.” The third or current period, also
dubbed the scientific era, commenced about a hundred years ago with the combined research in psychology, psychiatry and neurology.
The Neurosciences And the Cathechism Of the Catholic Church
The past ten years or so have been designated as the decade of the brain, inasmuch as the neurosciences advanced by leaps and bounds;
consequently, psychiatry, too, accelerated its pace, with perfected diagnostic tools and more precise differential diagnoses. The far-
reaching positron emission tomography, often termed by its acronym, PET, tracks down psychopharmacologic medications into discrete brain areas; working together, neurologists and psychiatrists, enhance their diagnostic acumen, as they view physiologic processes inside
the living brain.
Psychiatry, an empirical science, based on direct observation and experimentation, ordinarily, focuses merely on one aspect of the
human person, and one constituent of human reality.
The (no. 1703) teaches that man is “endowed with a spiritual and immortal soul; the human person is the only creature that God has willed for its own sake. From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.” And in no. 1702, we read that “The divine image is present in every man.” Man’s likeness to God and his spiritual nature amplifies our present
Pontiff’s categorical affirmation of the “whole truth about man.”
Sadly, the supernatural factor is either shunned or decreed non-existent, even by good psychotherapists. The aforementioned factor
is the neglected complementary, but obligatory part of treatment.“Human virtues are purified and elevated by divine grace. With
God’s help, they forge character” (CCC, no. 1810).
Treatment Hierarchy: Natural And Supernatural
Catholic psychiatrists can be evangelizers of the Catholic Faith; too often psychiatric patients pine for God and require instruction in
and direction to the knowledge and truth of our Faith. “The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God
and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to Himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for”
(CCC, no. 27).
Families, too, need help on both natural and supernatural levels of treatment. We aid them to identify dysfunctional coping mechanisms or
psychopathological behavior and also to grasp the sublime efficacy of supernatural grace as an antidote to family difficulties, for our
“growth in Christian life needs the nourishment of Eucharistic Communion, the Bread for our pilgrimage until the moment of death”
(CCC, no. 1392). Only then will family members be capable of heroic virtues; only then will their mutual devotion intensify while
selfishness fades away.
The fields of psychology and psychiatry have rightly been censured by many, not only for their shortcomings, but also for their morally
offensive theories. Both fields, however, have wise and competent experts who proffer more tenable and realistic views of the human
person. Increasingly, Christian health workers, concede to the God-given dignity of the human person and their responsibility to respect
moral values and family traditions. Our present Holy Father lauds psychiatrists who practice judicious therapy and dispense medications
prudently.
The Catholic Psychiatrist As Evangelizer
The Roman Catholic Church has sounded the clarion call to duty:”Conserve Truth; preserve the family.” She has singled out the laity
as a major player in rebuilding the Mystical Body of Christ and uplifting society from its moral turpitude. The lay person, in the
midst of the world, has a unique vocation, whatever the state of life or whatever the expertise. We are to proclaim and put into practice the Gospel of Christ in the classrooms and tribunals of justice, in the family abode, in the marketplace and in clinics and hospitals.
Psychiatrists, too, are not to separate the Catholic Faith from daily life but to unify our natural existence with the supernatural vision,
in ourselves and in the patients we treat.
Evangelization for the Catholic psychiatrist implies assent to the authoritative and irrefutable definition of man, “a being at once
corporeal and spiritual” (CCC, no. 362), equipped with intelligence and a free will, with the capacity to ponder and to choose. This
authentic model of the human person is the logical and sane replacement for the rampant deterministic, absurd and purposeless
psychological and psychiatric theories.
There are some caveats to this approach to treatment which may not be applicable to some for sundry reasons. Only after a thorough analysis of the patient’s past and present life history can one be confident in the pursuit of spiritual objectives.
The Catholic psychiatrist as evangelizer must avoid the extreme positions of naturalism (treating the body or mind) on one
hand, and of pure supernaturalism or angelism (faith can heal), on the other. Many forget that we are not angels who are pure spirits; our bodies can be defective, our intellects, obscured, and our wills, rebellious. On the natural level, “human virtues can be acquired by education, by deliberate acts and by a perseverance ever-renewed in repeated efforts” (CCC, no. 1810). Reassuring for all of
us is the realization that the effects of original sin, and our own nothingness can be supplanted by the certainty of grace, and the
human heart, filled with the fullness of God. This is therapy at the highest level. “It is not easy for man, wounded by sin, to maintain
moral balance. Christ’s gift of salvation offers us the grace necessary to persevere in the pursuit of the virtues. Everyone should
always ask for this grace of light and strength, frequent the sacraments, cooperate with the Holy Spirit, and follow His calls to love what is good and shun what is evil” (CCC, no. 1811). We need to reflect on the latent capability in all of us, either to soar to the towering heights of grace, or plunge down into the abyss of sin,
decadence and despair. I will always marvel at the amazing effects on how a deepening faith and love of God in patients have strengthened
their character and re-integrated their personalities.
Holiness And The Holy Spirit
Evangelizing others can lead to our own sanctification. Holiness is not a monopoly of the clergy, or monks and nuns. People of deep faith are invited not only to renew the temporal order, but also to a deep prayer life. Sanctity is not the discretion of a few but a duty and
responsibility of all. This is made possible by the graces that accompany our state in life. “Having gifts that differ according to
the grace given us, let us use them” (CCC, no. 2004).
“Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of
working, but it is the same God Who inspires them all in every one.
To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to
another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy,
to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit Who apportions to each one individually as He wills. For just as the body is one and
has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ” (1 Corinthians 12: 4-12).
Dr. Luz G. Gabriel is a psychiatrist from Pittsburgh with
postgraduate residency training at McGill University and the
University of Missouri-Columbia. She is a member of the Fellowship of
Catholic Scholars and Vice President of the Steubenville/Western
Pennsylvania Chapter of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists.
Janet,
thanks for the answer — astute as usual!! :)
That can’t, literally, be your view. If the church somehow would say legal abortion is okay, would you submit yourself to their teaching authority, or would you say, “no, that’s wrong.”
Posted by: hal at November 13, 2008 2:46 PM
except that we have Jesus word that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Catholic Church at that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals.
The church’s teaching on abortion has not changed in the past 2000 years, despite what Nancy Pelosi may think.
Hi hal,
For what it’s worth, I agree with Bobby. The Church does not waver from the Truth. What you suggest wouldn’t happen.
Patricia,
when psychiatric medicine is practiced without acknowledging the supernatural, the end is just the management of symptoms. When the spiritual is brought into picture then real healing follows.
yeah, Janet, that WAS very good! :-D
Josephine and Hal,
You both ask great questions, and I’d love to get to them, but I have to clean the house with the wife right now. I”ll get to them tonight, I believe. OK? God love y’all.
Eileen,
Thanks. Same to you. Once in a while I get it right. :)
. . . . . . . . . . .
Patricia,
The church’s teaching on abortion has not changed in the past 2000 years, despite what Nancy Pelosi may think.
LOL to the above. Awesome post from Dr. Luz Gabriel.
Bobby: I hope you offer to do the bathroom!
I just thought of something — I’m going to digress here but within the context of healing through man’s knowledge and God’s grace. I have heard that anger can manifest in physical and psychological maladies. For instance, it is thought that too many children are being medicated for bi-polar disorder when it is really deeply rooted anger in some cases — for example, anger at being neglected by parents or abandoned by one parent or the other. When the anger is confronted and the child learns to forgive (grow in virtue) then real healing occurs. I thought that was awesome.
You are such a good man, Bobby! :D
I love working in the yard with my husband. Right now he is in Iraq so I wear his flannel jacket when I work in the yard. :)
Eileen #2,
How sweet! God bless your husband for his service to our country!
For further reading by interested persons:
The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons:A Psychological Note.(http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/PSYCHOMO.HTM)
From the Vatican document “The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, the following may be of interest. It is impossible to doubt the charity and mercy of the church when reading this document in it’s entirety. Here are some salient points to consider:
“Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, Para. 4).
In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
and in #7:
7. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.
To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.
As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.
and the Catholic Church in it’s mercy:
11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.
Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.
15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.
We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.
An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.
During an audience granted to the undersigned Prefect, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, approved this Letter, adopted in an ordinary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered it to be published.
Given at Rome, 1 October 1986.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect
Alberto Bovone
Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia
Secretary
Posted by: Patricia at November 13, 2008 3:49 PM
God bless and keep your husband safe, Eileen#2. It must be very difficult for you.
Just checking in to read Bobby’s responses — I always learn something :)
Thanks for the prayers, Janet and Patricia!
OK. House is clean, baby is in bed; I sang Marty Haugen and David Haas songs to her; that always puts her to sleep!
Alas, Josephine. I do understand what you’re saying; I really do. In fact, I sympathize greatly with what y’all are saying, especially after watching that emotional video of Oberlin that Hal asked me to watch.
But let’s think about this a second. Just because we may have an inclination to do something, want something, or desire something does not necessarily make it right (of course, it doesn’t make it wrong either). I have no idea if there is a gay gene or not. I’m not in that business. There very well could be, who knows. And so I have no problem assuming that there is, that many people are born with a desire and attraction to the same sex.
Let me be candid for a moment. I am still recovering from addiction to pornography. I was very attracted to it and unfortunately it still is somewhat tempting to me. Now perhaps someday they may find a “porn gene.” In other words, this may not be my “choice” at all. It could be encoded in my genes that watching two strangers having sex is just something that sets off certain neurons in my brain causing pleasure. But even if that was the case, that wouldn’t make it right. Giving into such a temptation would be detrimental to my marriage. It would make me respect my wife less by wishing that she was more like the women in the videos and would “act” like the women in the videos, rather than me loving her person, for who she is.
Now, the point is that just because we may have an inclination to something does not necessarily make it right. Of course, I have not argued that homosexual behaviour is wrong either (nor do I intend to). But I think another thing that is often overlooked is the fact that God allows these kinds of disorders in people to bring them closer to him. On the Irish Twins thread, I posted a response to my friend Leah about why suffering is integral to Christianity along with a link to a beautiful letter by JPII on the meaning of human suffering. Redemptive suffering is such a deep, beautiful, and profound topic; I don’t have the time nor space to expound upon it. But those who struggle with same sex attraction can take that and offer it up to God; they can hang on the cross with Christ himself and turn their suffering into redemption; they can attain more holiness or grace for others through their suffering. Our faith is SO paradoxical like that. As St. Paul says “It is when I am weak that I am strong.” God love you.
Hi Hal.
“If the church somehow would say legal abortion is okay, would you submit yourself to their teaching authority, or would you say, “no, that’s wrong.””
Right, great question. In this particular case, abortion has been defined “just about” infallibly as gravely sinful. This was in Evangelium Vitae. There are several levels of authoritative dogma, and all of them must be given AT LEAST the assent of faith. However, something like abortion has been defined such that it can never nor will it ever be changed. It simply can not. So if it ever was, what that would show is that the Catholic Church is a false church.
Now the reason I mentioned a little bit about levels of dogma is because some of them can never be changed (they have to be at a “certain level of dogma). Certain things that CAN be changed, though, you will not see me fighting as hard for. For example, the existence or non-existence of limbo. I don’t think it exists, I think there are some good reasons why, but I”m not going to fight tooth and nail over it because the church hasn’t authoritatively spoken on it. So for me, I don’t go beyond what the church teaches.
So sorry, with you Hal, I”m always digressing. Back to the issue. What about homosexuality? The congregation for teh doctrine of the faith has written about this in Persona Humana which states:
“At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.”
Anything that comes from CFDF is binding on Catholics and is not something that will be reversed or changed. Ever. It simply can not be.
I hope that somewhat makes sense. I know it’s a very different way of understanding things than you’re used to. But I hope this helps. God love you, Hal.
BTW, anyone interested in learning about these different levels of doctrine should see “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ott. In fact, every Catholic should own it. It’s invaluable. This discussion of doctrine is right at the beginning…the end of the intro or first chapter maybe? Sorry, I’m too lazy to descend the stairs…
You have a nice, smart way about you Bobby. I like that. But all I can say to all of that is wow, so glad I don’t have any dogma to follow!
Bobby, I understand that the church will never have a different view of abortion. I was just using it as an example. Something that you absolutely KNOW is wrong. Regardless of the church’s position. If the church was silent on the issue, you’d still be pro life I’m guessing. So, you must have some ability to form your own judgments, independent of the church, and if you think gay people should have the right to get married, (I know you currently don’t) and the church didn’t, you’d be in a pickle.
Hence, we have a lot of “cafeteria Catholics” out there. Maybe you’d say, I’m voting against gay marriage because that’s what my Church instructs, even though I disagree.
Or maybe you’d say, on this issue I have to vote my conscience.
You’re still a young man. I cannot be sure, but I would bet five dollars that in twenty years you still have your faith but you have found a way to reconcile your acceptance of gay marriage with that faith. (and without a doubt, still pro life)
Bobby, I completely understand what you’re saying and totally respect it. I do, however, think it’s coming from a Catholic point of view still.. and I don’t think gays should have to be forced to follow Catholic rule. That’s why I believe they should be allowed to marry. Maybe individual people believe it’s wrong, but.. well, this is a quote from Thomas Jefferson: “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
I believe God wants everyone to be happy, no matter what faith they choose to follow. I’m not saying I’m right, it’s just how I feel. I understand (as well as I can) and I by no means think you’re wrong. When I grow up (a lot) I may agree completely, but I’m a little too young for that. I think being in school still affects the way I think vs. the way many people on here think, since I’ve never been in the “real” world.
Josephine something tells me you may never live in the world that many people on here live in. I know I certainly don’t.
Virgina K, I think I agree with you on that. Key word though was: many. I may disagree with many, but there are some people I genuinely respect and I’m interested in their points of view. I think you’re the only one here with the same point of view as me. So, thank goodness. I was beginning to think I was crazy.
Why is it such a big deal to change the definition of a word? Instead of it being a union between a man and a woman, it would be a union between two people. You do realize California did have legalized gay marriage. Did it affect YOUR life at all? Because it didn’t affect me.
Posted by:Josephine at November 13, 2008 11:09 AM
Josephine,
There never has been and never will be anything called gay marriag; no matter what what California “called same sex ceromonies. So no, it didn’t effect me, but it wasn’t marriage. And as far as “what’swrong with changing the definition of something, WHY? Should we say that the sun is dark? Should we say that one plus one is twenty? Should we say that a man can call himself a women just ause he feels like one? I say no. I like things to be defined. It makes it easier to understand one another.
Uhm, if you change the definition of “dark” to “light” then yes. You could say the sun is dark. But we’re not talking about completely changing definitions. Just expanding what they mean. And one+one being twenty is not changing the definition of anything… so, that’s not a very good example. There is such a big difference between EVERY example you used… none of those are close to what it would mean to change the definition of the word marriage. It would be more like… I don’t know, changing the definition of the word
There never has been and never will be anything called gay marriage
Truthseeker, there has been, and is, and I think we’ll see it permitted more and more, just as interracial marriage became more prevalent.
Uhm, if you change the definition of “dark” to “light” then yes. You could say the sun is dark. But we’re not talking about completely changing definitions. Just expanding what they mean. And one+one being twenty is not changing the definition of anything… so, that’s not a very good example. There is such a big difference between EVERY example you used… none of those are close to what it would mean to change the definition of the word marriage. It would be more like… changing lines on a map so that Egypt is now part of Europe instead of Africa. It would just be including something else.
We change the definition of marriage all the time. It is now a volunatary union of two people, there was a time when a girls parents had more of a say in her “decision.” It once allowed for more than one wife (and still does in other countries). We have changed the age where marriage is permissible. We have changed the rules about cousins marrying. We have changed the rule that you’d have to be of the same race. Divorce was once not permitted, or permitted only with very different procedures.
Posted by: Hal at November 13, 2008 11:32 AM
Hal, No we don’t. Marriage was never defined as the union of a man and a woman of the same race. That was simply cultural growth arounf the always accepted definition of the marriage as being a man and a woman. The rules of divorce have never been a part of the definition of what makes a marriage, they are part of the definition of the termination of a marriage. Wether or not cousins can marry, again, cultural rules surrounding the constant definition. See how that works.
There never has been and never will be anything called gay marriage
Truthseeker, there has been, and is, and I think we’ll see it permitted more and more, just as interracial marriage became more prevalent.
Posted by: Doug at November 14, 2008 12:09 AM
Doug,notice how interracial marriage did not change the definition of traditional marriage, it was just a cultural change around the constant definition of the union between a man and a woman.
truthseeker, how would homosexuals being allowed to marry affect your life?
Josephine
That’s like asking me how would allowing men to call themselves women effect my life. It would basically take a fundamental building block of my environment and turn it upside down. If society as a whole were to accept men calling themselves women, and women calling themselves men, then we lose our ability to understand one another with regards to our sex. When the fundamental building blocks go then so does order, and I don’t like disorder. What chance would we have of living a life understanding if we don’t have definitions. Next they would define my wife as their wife by changing the definition of the word wife. Where would it end?
Truthseeker, I can’t even respond to such a ridiculous argument. Definitions change. For a little bit of time, the definition of marriage in California changed and unfortunately, it was changed again just recently.
The world didn’t break down because the definition of marriage was changed. Really. If tomorrow I found out I didn’t have a dog anymore, she was now called a .. I don’t know, bookcase.. I would probably be confused for a minute and think “holy crap, that’s weird” but it wouldn’t mean anything. Bookshelves would still exist and my dog was still the same dog.. just called something different.
My references are stupid. It’s hard to find things to compare.
Josephine,
Marriage is a public recognition/celebration of a man and a woman living out the complimentarity of the sexes. Hhomosexuals would take that special recognition away because they are insecure that others would say they can’t have the same type of relationship as heterosexuals. They need to find their own “celebration” cause marriage is already defined/taken as the celebration of heterosexual unions. Why would heterosexuals want to deny the specialness that comes in the complimentary of the union of a man and a woman in marriage? It is like asking us to deny the cornerstone of our relationship.
Hal and Josephine.
Thanks for the replies. I really appreciate your thoughts on all of this. I know it’s a volitale subject and highly emotional as well.
Hal there was just one real quick thing. While I was discussing submission of the will in the context of being Catholic and homosexuality to Josephine, that doesn’t necessarily mean I don’t think there are good “secular” grounds for being opposed to gay marriage. Lately I’ve been trying to form some arguments that I would hope to be somewhat persuasive to a non-religious, which is why I won’t discuss the matter right now other than looking at it from a strictly Catholic POV which, of course, I know should not appeal to a general person. But yeah, who knows if that will come to fruition or not…
Hal, Doug, Josephine.. sad to say, but you aren’t going to have any effect on what these people think on the issue. It doesn’t really matter though. Fact is, homosexual marriage will happen. That is the direction we are headed. With the christian conservatives losing their hold on federal politics we will only just get there faster now. In our lifetime for sure, homosexual couples will have the same rights as heterosexual couples and society will wonder what the big deal was ever all about.
Oh, don’t someone start talking about Scandanavia. Their marriage rates were dropping long before homosexual marriage was legalized. That was not the reason. And by the way, have you even been to Scandanavia? Do you know anything about life there? They put us to shame as a family-centered society. I can’t think of a better place to raise a family.
So talk al you want about what the bible say, what the church says, what Catholic dogma dictates. In the end it doesn’t matter to anyone but yourselves. And you won’t change your minds until someone you love, your child or grandchild perhaps, tells you they are gay and you just may start to understand and look at things differently.
Oh and to clarify: when I say “marriage” I am referring to civil marriage, not church marriage. That’s a separate matter and should be left in the hands of the church.
Virinia,
You don’t think the complimentarity of the sexes deserves to be recognized as a special union? That is what marriage is.
Virginia,
Both civil and church marriage are a recognition of the complimentarity of the sexes. Thus the genesis of the terms husband and wife. How do you define the terms husband and wife? Would they have any meaning with relation to marriage? Should we change the definition of wife too so that one of the two homosexual males can be a wife? After all, that is the way it is in traditional marriage. The truth is that the your agenda is an attack on the family and that you would like a world where marriage is no longer recognized period.
What are you going to change the defition of next Virginia since everything is fair game in your world of chaos. Should a woman who feels like a man deep inside be banned from competing for title of Miss Universe? If so, then why?
So talk al you want about what the bible say, what the church says, what Catholic dogma dictates. In the end it doesn’t matter to anyone but yourselves. And you won’t change your minds until someone you love, your child or grandchild perhaps, tells you they are gay and you just may start to understand and look at things differently.
Posted by:Virginia K at November 14, 2008 7:13am
Virginia,
“Almost” nobody wants to live in a world where people do not recognize there are differences between men and women, and people have always celebrated those differences in the complimetatiry of their union. Sure, these things are supported by the teachings in scripture, and God’s word is important to a majority of the population, but the complimentary union between people of different sexes is also easily recognizable in secular society, so your analysis of a new liberal agenda bringing about a disregard for the recognition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is balederdash. Even your extreme leaning liberal Barack Hussein Obama, whenever he was asked on the campaign trail, could not bring himself to say anything other than marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. What does that tell you about the fate of the homosexual “marriage” initiative?
Virginia,
Should a man who feels like a woman deep inside be banned from competing for title of Miss Universe?
Virginia,
Should a man who feels like a woman deep inside be banned from competing for title of Miss Universe?
Posted by: truthseeker at November 14, 2008 11:27 AM
I really don’t think anyone cares much about who competes for the title of Miss Universe. we’re talking about serious denial of people’s rights, not some silly pagent.
Doug,notice how interracial marriage did not change the definition of traditional marriage, it was just a cultural change around the constant definition of the union between a man and a woman.
Truthseeker, it’s still a case of others saying that such-and-such people shouldn’t get married or be allowed to marry. This too shall pass….
Hal, Doug, Josephine.. sad to say, but you aren’t going to have any effect on what these people think on the issue. It doesn’t really matter though. Fact is, homosexual marriage will happen. That is the direction we are headed. With the christian conservatives losing their hold on federal politics we will only just get there faster now. In our lifetime for sure, homosexual couples will have the same rights as heterosexual couples and society will wonder what the big deal was ever all about.
Virginia, I think you’re right – just a matter of time. Those who insist on such a literal interpretation of the Bible, religion, etc., will be increasingly marginalized.
Truthseeker, no I do not think a union between man and wife (as opposed to man and man or woman and womwn)deserves special recognition. I believe in equality. Just as a marraige between a man and woman who cannot or chose not to have children should not be viewed as inferior to that of a couple that does reproduce.
As for your Miss Universe query, that’s a ridiculous extension of the debate. But
whatever…. no I have no problem with a transgender competing. I see no advantage they would have and as for the possibility that they would endanger the sanctity or prestige of the title or render the contest insignificant or ridiculous, well…. oh why bother……….
Doug, good to have you here.
Virginia, I think the abortion debate is a good one since it takes us all down to the unprovable assumptions we make at a very basic level.
I also think that Jill’s site has, by far, the best Pro-Life arguers. I’ve never seen anything even close.
Doug,
I think the abortion debate is a good one since it takes us all down to the unprovable assumptions we make at a very basic level.
egg+sperm=baby
It doesn’t get more basic than that and I’ve made no assumptions. Get a microscope and you’ll see.
Truthseeker, no I do not think a union between man and wife (as opposed to man and man or woman and womwn)deserves special recognition. I believe in equality.
Posted by:Virginia K at November 14, 2008 5:39 PM
Virginia K., you deny that the the union of a man and a woman is any different than the union of two men or two women. To do so is to deny that men and women are no different from one another, therefore there can be nothing different or unique in their relationship. If a person is willing to go that far into denial and outside of reality to put forth such obvious falsehoods then no rational argument can change their minds. You should understand that while it is true that man and woman are equal in personhood, that should not be construed to mean they are the same. And if they are not the same, then their is something unique and special about their union. It is a constant through all cusltures throughout the history of mankind.
Duh, truthseeker …. of course man and woman are different. But that doesn not means that thier partnership deserves any special recognition and rights than other loving and committed couples’ partnerships deserve.
You present incredibly lame arguments, by the way truthseeker.
OK Virginia. Enjoy your reality in your head with you female husband.
I really don;t like sarcasm but when faced with such denial of rational thought I need to ask a few ridiculous questions that by their nature are sarcastic….
Has Webster changed the definition of husband to meet your definition of marriage yet? It hardly seems fair that a man can be a husband and a woman can’t. How can that be politically correct. Why should a man be able to be a husband in a partnership and not a woman? Hmmm
truthseeker you are getting hung up on the traditional definition of marriage
Truthseeker I just realized something – You said to me “Truth is, your agenda is an attack on the family and you would like a world where marrriage is no longer recognized period” Oh really? I have an agenda? And I am anti-family and want to abolish marriage? This made no sense to me. Where does he/she get this stuff? Then I read your comment “Enjoy your reality in your head with your female husband” and I thought what the hell???? It just dawned on me: Truthseeker thinks I am a childless lesbian! That’s funny because on the contrary I am a happily married heterosexual of 19 years and a mother of two teenagers. Why would you assume I am gay? Because I support their equal rights? Is selfless caring so hard for you to fathom? Wow.
Duh, truthseeker …. of course man and woman are different. But that doesn not means that thier partnership deserves any special recognition and rights than other loving and committed couples’ partnerships deserve.
says who? You?
Virginia, I think you’re right – just a matter of time. Those who insist on such a literal interpretation of the Bible, religion, etc., will be increasingly marginalized.
Posted by: Doug at November 14, 2008 1:38 PM
It’s not about the Bible at all. It’s about how we have been designed biologically and it’s plain to any idiot that man and woman are complementary to one another. They are designed whether by an intelligent being or by evolution, to mate and be partners. Two men are not nor are two women. Even the evolutionist would admit that there would be absolutely no advantage whatsoever to same-sex attraction. And since we are not hermaphrodites, same-sex “mating” offers no benefits.
You know Doug you argue an idea to the point of stupidity really. It’s rather tiresome.
Just because the majority of a population might believe something, doesn’t make it right. Is this how you run your life? Good grief! The majority of people use to believe black people were not human and very stupid. But there WERE a FEW who thought otherwise. Guess what people believe today Doug? Can you figure this out? or maybe YOU still believe black people are stupid and not people??? Maybeeee…..??????
truthseeker you are getting hung up on the traditional definition of marriage
Posted by: virginia k at November 15, 2008 2:08 PM
yes that’s quite the HANG-UP you have there truthseeker. Better get counselling for your “hang-ups”!**eyes rolling***
Patricia, that’s utter nonsense when you think about it: If we are saying that the legitimacy of marriage is based on reproduction, how come we give the same rights and privledges of marriages to heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to reproduce? Those couple have no so called “advantage whatsoever to same-sex attraction”. Why don’t we not delay the rights and privledges of marriage to couples until they produce a child?
I was thinking about something the other day while I was watching Mean Girls. Remember the part where Gretchen tries to get them to say “fetch” as in… “cool”? Well, “fetch” has a definition already, doesn’t it? No one has to change the definition of marriage. Just add another definition to the word. You can’t deny it: that happens ALL the time.
We call all our clothing and equipment “gear”… well, “gear” also has another meaning. So, you can keep your definition of marriage being a union between a man and a woman… there you go. It’s all yours and safe for ever. There just need to be MORE definitions added to the word. (Cause, this whole debate is about definitions, isn’t it?)
Not really just definitions Josephine; the definitions were just used to try and make a point. It is about the complimentarity of the sexes. Men and women are designed in a complimentary fashion and it cannot be rationally denied. Thus the union of a man and a woman is “special” and deserves to be recognized as such. Virginia K. refuses to recognize that. She insists on arguing that the male-female relationship is no different then then a homosexual realtionship. Virginia, if you hadn’t met your husband, could you have had the same kind of relationship with a woman?
Virginia said; “thier partnership deserves any special recognition and rights than other loving and committed couples’ partnerships deserve.”
Virginia, Trying to change the current understanding of marriage to integrate homosexuals into it would be the destruction of what marriage represents to a husband and wife partnership. Your agenda doesn’t seem to be as much about rights as it is about denying that a husband and wife can have a relationship that is different than same-sex partners can have.
Can you explain what specific rights, that are granted to heterosexuals who marry, that you want so badly for homosexuals?
Virginia, if you hadn’t met your husband, could you have had the “same” kind of relationship with a woman?
Is selfless caring so hard for you to fathom?
Posted by: Virginia K at November 15, 2008 2:57 PM
Selfless caring comes easy to me. I do want to give others happiness. Unlike you I will not deny that their relationship is not the “same” as the relationship between a man and a woman. To do so would not be kind, it would be dishonest and lying to them just to make them happy.
how come we give the same rights and privledges of marriages to heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to reproduce? Those couple have no so called “advantage whatsoever to same-sex attraction”.
Posted by:Virginia K at November 15,2008 10:43 PM
Virginia, Two homosexual male partners cannot provide the advantage of a mother to their family. Two homosexual females cannot provide the advantage of a father to their family. Oh wait, what if you add the concept of threesomes to marriage; then two lesbians could bring a token man into the house to play father to their children. There are innumerable differences between same sex partners and heterosexual partners. Why do you insist on blinding yourself to the differences? For you it will all start when you allow yourself to admit those differences (advantages) exist.
Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school and eleven times more likely to commit violent crime. How does that weigh into your “no advantage” when compared to lesbian partners ability to raise a family?
OMG truthseeker, statistics are a dangerous thing with you. Some critical though is required.
It is not simply he absence of a father that is the cause of this probem. Consider the environment in which most fatherless children are raised in this country. Got it? Drugs, guns,bad neighbourhoods, lack of education, lack of resuorces, lack of supervision….. Okay. Now that environment is very very different from the environment that two loving, commited gays or lesbians choose to raise a child in.
What rights do heterosexual marriages have???? Are you serious? You honestly don’t know truthseeker?
If I hadn’t met my husband could I have had the same relationship with a woman? No, because I am heterosexual as I already said. Pay attention truthseeker.
What rights do heterosexual marriages have???? Are you serious? You honestly don’t know truthseeker?
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 8:25 AM
I have my idea of what rights they are looking for, but you still haven’t told me yours. So I ask again: Can you explain what specific rights, that are granted to heterosexuals who marry, that you want so badly for homosexuals?
If I hadn’t met my husband could I have had the same relationship with a woman? No, because I am heterosexual as I already said.
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 8:27 AM
Well there you have it. Homosexuals cannot have the same relationship as a husband and wife. So the union of a man and woman is unique and should be described as such so why confuse the meaning by changing the definition of the institution that describes that special union.
It is not simply he absence of a father that is the cause of this probem. Consider the environment in which most fatherless children are raised in this country. Got it? Drugs, guns,bad neighbourhoods, lack of education, lack of resuorces, lack of supervision….. Okay. Now that environment is very very different from the environment that two loving, commited gays or lesbians choose to raise a child in.
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 8:23 AM
Would your children have been lacking anything in their lives if your husband had died and they had no relationship with a father figure?
Really Truthseeker are you stupid?
When I say that I would not have had the same relationship with a woman as I have with my husband had I not met him, I was NOT saying that our relationship is special because we are man and women! I was saying I, Virginia, would not have had the same relationship with a woman because I, Virginia, am not gay.
Of course my children would be missing their father if they lost him, having known him. I’m not going to fall for that simple trap Truthseeker.
But would not having him mean they were without a “father figure”? No, not nescessrialy. I could marry another wonderful man who would be a role model for them. And they would have other males in their life to provide that as well. And even if I were to raise them myself without a close male, I am a well-educated mother with life experiences and able to provide for my children very well – much different than the situation you are speaking of that lead to fatherless boys being twice as likely to drop out of school and 11 times as likely to commit violent crimes.
What specific rights am I talking about that come with marriage? Well, to be brief, all the rights related to taxes, immigration, inheritance, personal care, etc.
Pretty straight forward
Patricia, that’s utter nonsense when you think about it: If we are saying that the legitimacy of marriage is based on reproduction, how come we give the same rights and privledges of marriages to heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to reproduce? Those couple have no so called “advantage whatsoever to same-sex attraction”. Why don’t we not delay the rights and privledges of marriage to couples until they produce a child?
Posted by: Virginia K at November 15, 2008 10:43 PM
the legitimacy of marriage is not based on the right to reproduce.
Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. It is a promise by each to remain with one another through good and bad. A reflection of their love is in the creation of children. They are open to having children. That is a very important part of a legitimate marriage. An infertile couple may not be able to have children but they remain open to the possibility. It is to be between an man and a woman because they are quite obviously designed complementary to one another.
What I find truly sad about your views is that you find nothing remarkable about your marriage with your husband.
What specific rights am I talking about that come with marriage? Well, to be brief, all the rights related to taxes, immigration, inheritance, personal care, etc.
Pretty straight forward
Posted by: Virginia K at November 16, 2008 1:36 PM
why should these rights come with marriage and not to single people?
If marriage is not special enough to be between a man and a woman, how can you limit the above rights to two men, two women, a man and a woman? Why not a man with 3 wives? Surely there is nothing wrong with polygamy in your view?
Funny Patricia, in your commment you neglect to mention your feelings on the legitimacy of the marriage of a man and woman, fertile or not, who choose not to have children. You have not addressed my point.
And as an aside….What does “remarkable” mean Patricia? Special, worthy of notice. Yes then, I do think my marriage to my husband is remarkable. It’s wonderful… no reason to be sad for me Patricia!
The rights that I mention Patricia are with regards to how they apply to committed couples. Not applicable to singles.
As for polygamy, I don’t really have an issue I suppose. I fail to see how it would impact on my marriage and just because I may not be interested in polygamy (hmmm, though there is polyandry…..) I don’t think I should impose my belief on others. Try again….
What specific rights am I talking about that come with marriage? Well, to be brief, all the rights related to taxes, immigration, inheritance, personal care, etc.
Pretty straight forward
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 1:36 PM
Pretty straight forward that these same rights could be made available through civil unions without trying to destroy marriage too. Would you object to that? And shouldn’t those same rights be available to unmarried heterosexual couples? Why should unmarried commited loving heterosexuals be denied those rights?
Really Truthseeker are you stupid?
When I say that I would not have had the same relationship with a woman as I have with my husband had I not met him, I was NOT saying that our relationship is special because we are man and women! I was saying I, Virginia, would not have had the same relationship with a woman because I, Virginia, am not gay.
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 1:21 PM
Virginia, Granted you are not gay, but unlike you I think my relationship with my wife is different than the relationship that two lesbians could have together. Am I to understand that you don’t think your relationship with your husband is any different then the relationship between two homosexual men?
Of course my children would be missing their father if they lost him, having known him. I’m not going to fall for that simple trap Truthseeker.
But would not having him mean they were without a “father figure”? No, not nescessrialy. I could marry another wonderful man who would be a role model for them. And they would have other males in their life to provide that as well.
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 1:33 PM
Your comments above make it obvious that you think a relationship with a “father figure” is important to your chldren. My question to you then is why wouldn’t you think that would be important to all children?
Virginia, Granted you are not gay, but unlike you I think my relationship with my wife is different than the relationship that two lesbians could have together. Am I to understand that you don’t think your relationship with your husband is any different then the relationship between two homosexual men?
Posted by:truthseeker at November 16,2008 4:39 PM
By this I mean, aren;t there things you can offer to your marriage and to your children that a man could not offer?
Sure there are certain things that a mother or a father offer to children that cannot be replaced. But that does not mean that we should deny two very capable, loving, qualified and committed males or females the right to raise children. Or that they cannot do a better job than some parents.
As for extending the civil rights currently available to married heterosexual couple to all COMMITTED couples be they married or not, heterosexual or homosexual, I am all for that. Completely. I do not know what the law is in the U.S. for common-law couples, but in Canada when a couple has lived together for a certain period of time they are considered the same as married couples in terms of their rights and privledges.
As for extending the civil rights currently available to married heterosexual couple to all COMMITTED couples be they married or not, heterosexual or homosexual, I am all for that. Completely. I do not know what the law is in the U.S. for common-law couples, but in Canada when a couple has lived together for a certain period of time they are considered the same as married couples in terms of their rights and privledges.
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 5:56 PM
So unmarried heterosexual couples have all the same common law rights as married couples but they are not married. That proves then that homosexual couples could get those same rights without getting married. So why do you insist on the need to change the definition of marriage in order to get your rights?
Is that the case in the U.S. Truthseeker? I don’t think so.
In any case, I am sure gay couples have reasons for wanting to be married, just the same as heterosexuals do.
You are sure, but you just don’t know what they are huh? Just like you are sure you have the right to kill babies in the womb even though you claim to not know when they become persons. Don’t take it hard Virginia, you have a lot of liberal company; just most of them are smart enough to know they can’t argue their positions rationally so they avoid sites like this.
Funny Patricia, in your commment you neglect to mention your feelings on the legitimacy of the marriage of a man and woman, fertile or not, who choose not to have children. You have not addressed my point.
In fact I did in my 2:41pm post: a couple in a legitimate marriage must be open to having children.
As for polygamy, I don’t really have an issue I suppose. I fail to see how it would impact on my marriage and just because I may not be interested in polygamy (hmmm, though there is polyandry…..) I don’t think I should impose my belief on others. Try again….
Posted by: Virginia K at November 16, 2008 3:12 PM
First of all you have proven my point that people who support same-sex marriage MUST also support polygamy.
Therefore you would also have no objection to a 12 year old or even perhaps a 9 year old being forced to be married as is common in some cultures. After all as you so eloquently admitted “I don’t think I should impose my belief on others. Try again….”
Nor would you be in a position to dispute your husband should he decide to include a dog in your “marriage” after all that would be imposing on his belief of that his marriage should include bestiality….
Posted by: Virginia K at November 16, 2008 3:12 PM
please ignore the second “posted by Virginia” at bottom of my comment
Oh that’s too much Patricia! Thanks for the laugh. To extend the discussion to beastiality!
Ah yes, BTW… I do have an objection to someone marrying a 9 or 12 year old. That would not be two consenting adults.
Thank you for clarifying your position with regards to offspring. You know there are many married couples that are not “open to having children” and yet they and society consider their marriage to be legitimate. Last I checked willingness to have children wasn’t a requirement for a marriage license.
Oh that’s too much Patricia! Thanks for the laugh. To extend the discussion to beastiality!
Ah yes, BTW… I do have an objection to someone marrying a 9 or 12 year old. That would not be two consenting adults.
Oh so interesting! you brushed it off – the bestiality. You don’t believe in forcing your beliefs on someone else. So this means that your husband having a goat in the backyard or the bedroom for a little kinky stuff shouldn’t be a problem. Why would that bother you since you don’t want to impose your beliefs on him. Right? Likewise some Middle Eastern cultures have the belief that 9 year olds have no say in marriage. So of course, you can’t object to this either because that would be imposing your beliefs on the men in this culture.
Interesting Virginia. I wonder just how far you are prepared to carry this line of reasoning? How can object to rape? How can you object to aborting babies with Down syndrome. How can object to killing babies BORN with Down syndrome? How can you object to killing a 4 year old with aplastic anemia? These actions might all be part of another person’s belief system.
The decision to have or not have children does not make a civil marriage legitimate or illegitimate. But I would say a marriage that excludes children is lacking in some ways the “fullness” intended in the meaning of marriage.
“Men and women are designed in a complimentary fashion and it cannot be rationally denied.”
Clothing items are designed in a complimentary fashion. I don’t go around screaming at people that don’t match…
“You don’t believe in forcing your beliefs on someone else. So this means that your husband having a goat in the backyard or the bedroom for a little kinky stuff shouldn’t be a problem.”
Unless the animal can SAY it’s consenting, then that’s wrong. Both of the people in a gay relationship are CONSENTING. So comparing a man and a goat to a gay couple is ridiculous and disrespectful Patricia. Really, that’s disgusting.
why is consent so important Josephine? IF someone has the right to practice their beliefs as they see fit and no one can impose their beliefs on another, why is consent so important?
If consent is important, why does this then, not apply to abortion? After all, the baby cannot consent to being ripped out of the womb. Does this then make abortion wrong?
If as Virginia stated, she doesn’t believe that people should impose their belief system on another, I see nothing wrong with the scenario I’ve related. IF her husband happens to enjoy bestiality, why should he not exercise his right to practice this? IT is YOUR belief and maybe Virginia’s belief that this practice is gross. But it is NOT her husbands belief that this is gross (hypothetically, of course). Therefore, Virginia has no right to impose her beliefs on her husband. And he should be free to keep a goat for the purpose stated.
And what if her husband wants to marry 4 other women, all consenting? But of course Virginia doesn’t believe in polygamy. So according to her system of acting, she would have absolutely NO right whatsoever to tell him he can’t do this. Because of course, he has the right to act according to his beliefs which include having multiple wives.
And it is you who made the comparison, ironically Josephine, not me!!! Me thinks you are starting to get my point.
Patricia, I’ve said over and over I think abortion is wrong. I’m not sure why you try and fight with me about something we agree on. There is ABSOLUTELY NO SIMILARITY between gay marriage and bestiality. It had nothing to do with religious beliefs. It has to do with the fact that THIS IS AMERICA.
Geeze, you don’t want to be called homophobic but you think legalizing gay marriage is the same as…. a man having sex with a goat.
So, yes… I get your point. You think you’re better than gay people. You think you deserve a better life. You think you are deserving of love and they aren’t. That’s all your saying.
You make me sick.
The point is Josephine that this line of reasoning can be used and is used to support anything.
As an example, there was a Muslim man recently convicted of killing his wife or daughter (I forget which) and it was very evident that this was an “honor killing”. He is appealing becuase he says that the US justice system discriminates against his belief system (which allows him to avenge for dishonor). And you know what, based on how our current justice system works in other areas of law (family and medical ethics for example) he is quite right. In these areas we have allowed for the right to privacy to take precedence in areas it should NEVER have. You cannot apply this reasoning to one area of law (ex abortion rights, same-sex rights) and not to another area of law.
This is why Peter Singer is disliked by proaborts – because he extends the same kind of reasoning that proaborts use to other areas of life and the conclusion is not pretty.
I am also saying that you and Virginia are comparing same-sex marriage to marriage as it was meant to be and has always meant to be – between a man and a woman. And my premise is that there is something special and unique about marriage between a man and a woman, and that it ought to be recognized as such by society. This is not discrimination as you both claim. It is recognizing that this IS the social unit that forms society and is best for the rearing of productive citizens and for the growth of a nation. (NOT my opinion but now supported by a large body of research).
No one is trying to discriminate against same-sex attracted persons. I am not advocating hating same-sex attracted persons or treating them badly. I see this as one way in which they attempt to have their lifestyle legitimized. I’m not prepared agree to this.
If that makes you sick, Josephine, I am sorry. I hope that you will read some of the documents I’ve posted on the pastoral care of homosexual persons written by your own Catholic church Josephine. It would be helpful if you actually knew the church’s position instead of ranting against it.
“I think the abortion debate is a good one since it takes us all down to the unprovable assumptions we make at a very basic level.”
Janet: egg+sperm=baby
You can say that, or not. It’s subjective; a matter of opinion.
Terminology aside, we’re not in disagreement over the physical reality of the unborn much at all.
…..
It doesn’t get more basic than that and I’ve made no assumptions. Get a microscope and you’ll see.
That’s not what we were talking about.
“Virginia, I think you’re right – just a matter of time. Those who insist on such a literal interpretation of the Bible, religion, etc., will be increasingly marginalized.”
Patricia: It’s not about the Bible at all.
No, for many people it is.
…..
It’s about how we have been designed biologically and it’s plain to any idiot that man and woman are complementary to one another. They are designed whether by an intelligent being or by evolution, to mate and be partners. Two men are not nor are two women. Even the evolutionist would admit that there would be absolutely no advantage whatsoever to same-sex attraction. And since we are not hermaphrodites, same-sex “mating” offers no benefits.
Patricia, you’re simply wrong, there. The “benefits” are why people want to be together, and it’s not up to you to say they are wrong. If two gay people get married, it’s not like the world is desperately suffering because they won’t produce any children.
…..
You know Doug you argue an idea to the point of stupidity really. It’s rather tiresome.
Oh good grief – you changed the story and then complain about me. I think what I said about people who take the Bible too literally is true. And you don’t need gay people not to get married.
…..
Just because the majority of a population might believe something, doesn’t make it right. Is this how you run your life? Good grief!
First of all, “right” in whose opinion? Sure – of course a given individual or group may not agree with society’s position, or what the majority feels. It happens all the time.
…..
The majority of people use to believe black people were not human and very stupid. But there WERE a FEW who thought otherwise. Guess what people believe today Doug? Can you figure this out? or maybe YOU still believe black people are stupid and not people??? Maybeeee…..??????
You’re being silly. Obviously, today a majority of people support blacks having the righs they do, and a majority support women having the rights they do.