Catholic bishop to parishioners: Vote pro-abortion and jeopardize soul
I would like to review some of the principles to keep in mind as you approach the voting booth to complete your ballot. The first is the set of non-negotiables. These are areas that are “intrinsically evil” and cannot be supported by anyone who is a believer in God or the common good or the dignity of the human person.
They are:
1. abortion
2. euthanasia
3. embryonic stem cell research
4. human cloning
5. homosexual “marriage”
… Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal political platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally “complicit” with these choices which are intrinsically evil.
This could put your own soul in jeopardy.
The other position to keep in mind is the protection of religious liberty. The recent aggressive moves by the government to impose the HHS mandate, especially the move to redefine religion so that religion is confined more and more to the four walls of the Church, is a dangerous precedent. This will certainly hurt the many health care services to the poor given by our Catholic hospitals. Our Catholic hospitals in the Diocese give millions of dollars per year in donated services to the poor. In the new plan, only Catholic people can be treated by Catholic institutions.
~ Bishop David Ricken of the Catholic Diocese in Green Bay, Wisconsin, in an October 24 letter to parishioners, as reported by greenbaypressgazette.com, October 26
[Photo via fox6now.com]
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.
After years of general ambiguity on the voting guidelines, THANK GOD for those bishops who are speaking up more clearly!
Surprise, surprise – out of the 66 books of the Bible, we have five issues that are important!
Ex-GOP, don’t you mean the 73 books of the Bible!
Which of the five do you disagree with?
We had an insert in our bulletin about this a few weeks ago. I was so happy to see it! The priests at my church (Catholic) also spoke about marriage in two Sunday homilies following the insert. The homilies touched on gay marriage, IVF, divorce, etc. and people clapped afterward, which is very rare. Finally, the priests are talking about the Church’s teachings!
”To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally “complicit” with these choices which are intrinsically evil.”
From this point of view, would voting for RR be problematic because they support some exceptions in the case of abortion while the Catholic Church does not? Maybe somebody here who’s Catholic can help me out on this one.
Sorry Tyler – I’m not Catholic.
I just think it is very convenient that out of the entire message of the Bible, only five issues have been chosen by this man as important. Very interesting.
So a well meaning Christian can’t argue that marriage, as defined by the Government, is different than marriage, as defined by the church? Just a closed door to him? Not even a possibility? Marriage and divorce at the government level is 100% the same as marriage and divorce at the church level? I just don’t agree with that. We already twist marriage and divorce at the government level.
Hi JDC,
Romney’s position on abortion would be the lesser of two evils. When making a decision a Catholic has to accept the reality of the situation. The Martyrs always assessed the reality of the situation and did not foolishly or rashly choose to die…they chose to stand-up for their beliefs and were killed for doing so… Similarly, a Catholic voter is not choosing to support Mitt’s abortion exceptions, but rather his positions that life begins at conception, his desire to defund PP, and his desire to end the US funding of abortions internationally, etc… It is ok to support incremental improvements on the life issues if that is all there is being offered to the voter. In fact, a person would be neglecting their duty if they chose not to acknowledge the differences between the candidates. Each baby saved, whether it is an American baby or not, is a baby saved – and saving the lives of babies is what being prolife and Catholic is all about.
Finally, supporting Mitt Romney does not mean that the Catholic voter has given up the goal of restoring full and complete legal protection for the preborn.
Ex-GOP when you said there was 66 books of the Bible I would never have guessed that you weren’t Catholic – obviously, my first assumption was that you just counted incorrectly!!
A well meaning Christian can do many things. However, ignoring the benefits of traditional marriage is not one of them. A Christian should think of who marriage is designed to benefit. It is designed to benefit children, men, women, and society. Statistically, children do better when they have a mother and father. Families do better when they remain intact. Societies do better when there are more intact traditional families.
If you want to view children as commodities of a marriage feel free to go ahead to do so, but just remember that view has consequences for the children who are a product of that marriage. It seems rather cold and heartless to me, but then again, Christianity never said that it was going to rid the world of all cold and heartless individuals.
Hi Tyler,
Thanks for the response, it cleared a lot up.
Tyler – I have friends who have chosen not to have children, and friends who can’t have children.
So do they serve no purpose? Should they not be allowed to marry?
Also, if a few studies showed that kids were better off with gay parents, would you then say gay parents are the only ones allowed to marry?
Ex-GOP
Yes they should be allowed to marry.
This is completely different scenario to homosexual individuals trying to marry. Having children is only one of the benefits of marriage.
Ex-GOP Also, if a few studies showed that kids were better off with gay parents, would you then say gay parents are the only ones allowed to marry?
No. (BTW, it takes a man and a woman to create a child. Under your hypothetical scenario you will be reducing hetrosexual people to breeders for the homosexual community.)
Ex-GOP do you not think there are somethings that only heterosexual couples can model and teach their children? In other words, are there no differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples? If there are differences between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples then surely a study will have to acknowledge that there are some benefits that only a heterosexual couple can provide. If the study fails to acknowledge this, it is doing so on purpose.
God Bless Bishop Ricken! I visited Wisconsin this summer (Door County) so I was in his area. Visited a beautiful shrine, too.
He speaks the truth.
I will be praying very very hard for the next ten days up to and including election day.
It’s dangerous to put gay marriage on a par with the life-and-death issues, even if you happen to oppose gay marriage.
Ex, still waiting to hear what you line in the sand is and what you have to tell yourself to stomach the body count. You tell me which issue the Bishop left out of his list that is more important or the one that Obama has spent more political capital promoting than abortion?
You’re not pro-life. You’re faux-life.
Tyler – thanks for the clarification – your first comments seemed to indicate that only heterosexuals should be allowed to be in a legally recognized marriage because they can have children.
I’m not saying at all that a gay couple and a heterosexual couple are equal. But I don’t believe a couple of 20 somethings are the same as a couple of 40 somethings – or that a catholic couple is the same as a JW couple. There’s a lot of differences between a lot of relationships. There are thousands of gay couples that would be better homes than a lot of heterosexual couples out there.
I think it gets dangerous when we make the argument “well, we should only allow people to marry if they reach this threshold of ‘goodness'”. First off, that isn’t constitutional. Secondly, it allows for people to make judgment calls on what is good and what is bad.
My idea situation would be no government level marriage – I don’t need the state government to ‘bless’ my marriage. But short of that, gays being able to marry aren’t straining my relationship or leading to the downfall of society.
Courtnay – I did answer that on the Biden post – I wrote: “As I play with my two year old this morning, I can’t fathom how people have abortions. I think it’s a sad state of the world where people see the option of having a baby or killing a baby, and believe that killing the baby is the better option for them in their life. It’s terrible.”
On your second question – what about the treatment of the poor? Those marginalized in society?
What is your definition of pro-life (like if an alien came down from the sky and asked what you had to do/be to be pro-life, what would you answer?)
Ex-GOP,
That is what I meant. Heterosexuals should be the only people allowed to marry legally.
Just so it is clear, this is how my original answer should have read: Yes, your heterosexual friends who can’t and/or choose not to have children should be allowed to marry. Your homosexual friends should not be allowed to marry each other – they are friends. I hope that clarifies my point of view for you.
The Constitution is meant to recognize our natural or God-given right. Homosexual marriage is neither natural or God-given.
Ex-GOP are you arguing that more types of relationships in addition to homosexual couples should be recognized as marriages?
Homosexuals should be treated under the law, but the law should not be changed because it would mean treating children differently under the law. It would saying that not all children deserve to have a Mother and Father. Individuals are not meant to decide what is right or wrong, without trying to ascertain what is objectively good for everyone, including children. Traditionally, this has meant people should be deferring to the moral law revealed by God, as well as the natural law as it can be discerned from our human nature.
Gay marriage may not be harming your relationship or marriage, but what about the children raised in gay marriages? What about the impact in will have on religious liberty? What about the impact will have on business? What about the impact on freedom of speech?
Whethe gay marriage is leading to the downfall of society depends on your own moral compass. I wouldn’t say that gay marriage is leading the way to a depraved culture – to me, abortion is leading the way.
Tyler – the marriage doesn’t say a thing about marriage. Zero, zip, nada. The constitution does say that in the eyes of the law, all men (people) are created equal.
On my argument, my argument is this: I don’t think marriage should be a government institution. It is a religious institution. The government needs some sort of recognition for legal rights (property, kids, visitation rights, whatever). I frankly don’t care if an older brother and sister are in a government union as it pertains to these rights. I don’t care if it is a gay couple, straight, whatever. The government needs to declare unions for legal functions. The church can declare whatever rules it wants for the purposes of what they recognize for marriage.
On your second to last paragraph – would you rather see a kid in foster care than with parents who are gay? If you ran the country, would you want to instantly make it a felony for gay parents to have children in the home?
And what is the impact on religious liberty? We’ve had gay marriage in a few states for a while – are people no longer able to pray? Can they not worship God? If people are worried about being “forced” to marry a gay couple, it is one more reason not to have the state “bless” marriages.
My marriage is between me, my wife, and God. I didn’t need the state of Minnesota to give me its blessing quite frankly.
So you just sit there and hand-wring about how terrible abortion is, while doing things you know are going to help contribute to thousands of children being killed legally in utero. To make yourself feel better.
Oh my goodness gracious, abortion is just sooooo terrible and bad. So let me go vote for someone who would’ve cheered on my wife and I had we chosen to have my 2 year old killed 2 and a half years ago.
xalisae – I’m assuming you are writing to me – no? (correct me if I’m wrong).
First off – I don’t believe Obama would have cheered anybody on who has had an abortion.
Secondly – I think that regardless of who is voted for, the abortion rate is going to be pretty similar 5, 10, and 20 years from now (not similar between today and in the future – similar between what it would be if Obama is the next President, or if Romney is the next President).
I only have the last 30 years of statistics to deduce that.
I don’t like Obama’s welcoming of abortion with open arms. I don’t like Romney’s economic and health care policies that I believe will drive more women to believe abortion is their best choice. Both are a huge negative when it comes to abortion. That’s my opinion.
First off – I don’t believe Obama would have cheered anybody on who has had an abortion.
I don’t like Obama’s welcoming of abortion with open arms.
Which is it?
To be fair, Obama is usually far too busy kissing Cecile Richards’ rear end to actually cheer on any individual abortions.
Ex-GOP,
Here’s where I think you go wrong about gay “marriage”:
My marriage is between me, my wife, and God. I didn’t need the state of Minnesota to give me its blessing quite frankly.
That sounds a lot like: “between my doctor and God”. Have civil unions for legal reasons, I don’t care. But just don’t call it marriage. That would be an oxymoron.
Navi – it’s possible to support something while not “cheering it on”. I support life in prison for murderers – I don’t cheer when a murder happens and somebody gets life in prison. I suppose police using lethal force if necessary. I support wars in certain situations. I support divorce in certain situations. I support removing children from homes in certain situations. In all those cases, I don’t cheer it on when it happens – it is allowable, but not a celebration.
Hans – it may sound like it, but it isn’t. A doctor is who you go to for medical care. In marriage, I’m talking about who “blesses” a marriage.
So you support civil unions and marriage at the state level? What rights would exist with one but not the other? Or would they be equal in practice, and simply go under different names?
So you don’t cheer on abortion, but it’s “allowable.”
You outed yourself again. Faux-life.
Courtnay – I was saying that the two aren’t opposite beliefs. Where did I say I said abortion should be allowable? If you think debate and conversation is making up what the other person said, and simply attacking that, then please leave me out of it.
“So you don’t cheer on abortion, but it’s “allowable.”
You outed yourself again. Faux-life.”
No, I’m pretty sure that’s the position he’s attributing to Obama, not himself.
I see he got to it before I did. All well, I suppose he can speak for himself.
Thanks JDC!
” That sounds a lot like: “between my doctor and God”. Have civil unions for legal reasons, I don’t care. But just don’t call it marriage. That would be an oxymoron.”
Except that abortion kills a human and gay people getting married…. makes gay people married? Lol. It’s really not the same type of thing.
EG: Still waxing ludicrous? “I don’t like Romney’s economic and health care policies that I believe will drive more women to believe abortion is their best choice.”
Do you think economic conditions that would lead to more abortions (as you believe) these past four years have been better, or worse, than they would be under a Romney administration during the next four?
“Gay marriage may not be harming your relationship or marriage, but what about the children raised in gay marriages? What about the impact in will have on religious liberty? What about the impact will have on business? What about the impact on freedom of speech?”
A. The kids will be fine in most cases, have a rough time in some (just like kids raised by heterosexual parents).
B. Lol, your “religious liberty” isn’t affected by gays getting married by the government. If a court orders a church to marry gays against their will go ahead and let me know, I’ll argue against that for you.
C. Business? Not much impact if anything. Maybe even positives.
D. Uh, the First Amendment covers your freedom of speech question, you might want to read it.
Rasqual – can you rephrase your last question? Are you asking me to compare the last four years economy against the next four years, or are you asking who I think will lead to a better economy in the next four years?
I hope it is the second, because the first doesn’t make much sense to compare – but let me know either way.
I won’t be able to answer until tomorrow afternoon- taking off to head out with friends, and then church in the morning.
Moderators -
Is it possible to automatically have me “like” everything Jack posts?
Thanks,
:D
Jack
I am not overly interested in the topic of gay marriage, but since you gave a thoughtful reply, and a sincere person I thought it best that I give some kind of response to your assertions.
Jack, what is your proof that children will be ok in gay marriages. I realize this is a catch 22 type of question – meaning how will we know until we give it a try. Well, the one study that I know that has been done on the subject says that children of gay couples don’t do as well as children of straight couples. The author of the study got totally slandered by the MSM and militant gay activists. Some even asked for him to lose his job.
With respect to the religious liberty issue Americans should note that in Canada Catholic schools are pretty much banned from teaching that homosexuality is a sin. Catholic schools aren’t allowed to teach what their Church believes. This also affects parental rights. The US Constitution is different, but if Justices could find a right to a dead baby in the Constitution they can pretty much finding anything else.
Many small business and some employees have had their lives and jobs affected when gay marriage has been made legal in their states. Bed and Breakfast owners have been forced to rent rooms to gay couples even if they had religious objections to homosexuality. A clerk will helped to issue marriage certificates was not permitted to ask co-workers to authorize the marriage certificattes of homosexuals. There was also the Chicken Sandwich company that got refused business permits because the owner believed in traditional marriage.
With respect to freedom of speech, in Canada a priest was accused of hate speech for teaching that homosexuality is sin. In Florida, a teacher lost their job for supporting traditional marriage. A New York hockey coach and a Canadian sportscaster lost their jobs for supporting traditional marriage via a tweet.
“Jack, what is your proof that children will be ok in gay marriages. I realize this is a catch 22 type of question – meaning how will we know until we give it a try. Well, the one study that I know have that has been done on the subject, says that children of gay couples don’t do as well. The author of the study got totally slandered by the MSM and militant gay activists.”
There are several different studies, there is the one you are talking about and others that say quite the opposite. Not really evidence either way for a firm opinion. My niece is doing fine being raised by my sister, much better than she did with her abusive natural family. I am sure most gay people will do fine with their kids. And you do realize that most gay people who are raising kids right now are raising their own bio kids? I always wonder if you all are suggesting taking kids from their biological parents based on orientation. Kids of single parents don’t do as well, as a trend, compared to kids with married parents, but we don’t take those kids away.
“With respect to the religious liberty issue America should note that in Canada Catholic are not pretty much banned from teaching that homosexuality is a sin. Catholic schools aren’t allowed to teach what their Church believes. This also affects parental rights. The US Constitution is different, but if Justices could find a right to a dead baby in the Constitution they can pretty much finding anything else.”
You said it yourself, the US constitution is different. I really don’t worry about it in the US.
“Many small business and some employees have had their lives affected when gay marriage was made legal in their states. Bed and Breakfast owners have been forced to rent rooms to gay couples even if they had religious objections to homosexuality. A clerk will helped to issue marriage certificates was not permitted to ask co-workers to authorize the marriage certificattes of homosexuals. There was also the Chicken Sandwich company that got refused business permits because the owner believed in traditional marriage.”
I don’t care about people being “forced” to issue marriage licenses in a government position for gay people. It’s their job. If they don’t like that aspect they can quit. It would be like me getting a job issuing hunting and camping permits and then trying to refuse to issue hunting licenses because of my moral opposition to eating meat. I don’t agree with the bed and breakfast being forced to rent, I do believe that private businesses should have the right to refuse service no matter how repugnant I find their viewpoints. I would like to see a link to proof this happened though, I haven’t heard anything about it. Who forced them? I also don’t think that the ChikFilA dude was actually denied a building permit, I think that the mayor ended up backing out of that because it was ridiculous.
“With respect to freedom of speech, in Canada a priest was accused of hate speech for teaching that homosexuality is sin. In Florida, a teacher lost their job for supporting traditional marriage. A New York hockey coach and a Canadian sportscaster lost their jobs for supporting traditional marriage via a tweet.”
You don’t understand what freedom of speech means if you think that is a violation of it. Our speech is protected from censure by the government, but private entities are not required to keep you hired if you say things they don’t like. I have the right to go join in with Westboro Baptist Church at a protest if I would like to, but my employer would almost certainly fire my ass if he found out and that would also be his right. I don’t care if people get fired over expressing their opinions. I support that Christian school’s legal right to fire an unwed mother even though I find it repugnant, just as I find “moral clauses” in Christian employment fairly invasive but the business does have the right to ,make it’s own stipulations on who they will employ.
I don’t understand this alarmism. You guys do realize that WBC says stuff that is far worse than any supporter of “traditional” marriage would even think, and their right to say it and protest has been upheld in court several times?
On second thought, maybe the bed and breakfast could be legally required to provide lodging. There are public accommodation civil rights laws.
Hi Jack
I am definitely not for taking kids away. And I agree that children of single parents typically don’t do as well as intact families. I think our society needs do more to support families and marriages. Intact families are still the best place to raise kids. For this reason I don’t think our society should be encouraging kids to start in less than the ideal situation – two loving and committed heterosexual parents.
Jack, I did a little digingg about the Bread and Breakfast story, and after finding what I think was the original story I find a whole slew of more stories just like it…it seems like this must be some kind of strategy/trend that the homosexual community has promoted:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/17/gay-couple-sue-bed-breakfast
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/christian-bb-owners-ordered-to-pay-fines-to-gay-couple.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-couple-prepares-to-sue-two-illinois-bed-and-breakfasts/
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-couple-sue-hawaii-b-b-claim-discrimination-230124597.html
Jack, aside from adoption the other ways that permit homosexuals to have children involve a lot of questionable medical practices that touch on life issues. Many homosexuals resort to IVF and surrogates which are practices that are frought with many moral implications. However, these life issues rarely get discussed when homosexual marriage is talked about because it is not obvious. There is a lot of exploitation of human life that results from homosexuals wanting to have their own biological children.
Okay I read your links Tyler. It seems like two of the cases weren’t even from the US so I’ll disregard that, since we are discussing the US freedom of religion that other countries don’t necessarily have.
It seems that in the US legalizing gay civil unions and marriage causes discriminating against renting out rooms and such to gay couples to fall under civil rights laws that protect equal accommodations. I dunno, it’s seems okay to me. Would you support, for example, a B&B refusing to rent to an interracial couple or an interfaith couple? Why or why not? I do respect the rights of business owners to practice their freedom of religion, but discriminatory practices need to be curtailed. It’s a fine line, I admit. For example, I think there are still country clubs where I am not welcome because of my race. Do you think that’s acceptable? Where do you think that line should be?
“Jack, aside from adoption the other ways that permit homosexuals to have children involve a lot of questionable medical practices that touch on life issues. Many homosexuals resort to IVF and surrogates which are practices that are frought with many moral implications. However, these life issues rarely get discussed when homosexual marriage is talked about because it is not obvious. There is a lot of exploitation of human life that results from homosexuals wanting to have their own biological children.”
Well, I don’t agree with IVF practices that result in the destruction of embryos, I am fine with IVF that I have seen used by some couples (where they implant one embryo at a time, no freezing or throwing away of “extra” embryos). It’s not so much a problem with the LGBT community as the fact that as a society we still have these life issues.
Wow, those comments on that Lifesitenews article make me sick:
“I keep telling you all that there is no moderate course of action on the ‘gay’ issue.
Crush them or they will crush you. They are evil and must be crushed.
God annhilated Sodom and Gomorrah and we must do the same. These are bad, evil people whose entire purpose in life is abhorrent sexual thrill seeking.
Attacking kids and society.
Chesterton said, “Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.”
Decency demands that we must be intolerant of these destroyers.
Vanderbilt University now is restricting Christian groups because they will not allow gays as leaders. ?? Diversity is Perversity!!! Inclusion is a smoke screen for restricting individual liberty.
St. Augustine said that their sin must be punished whenever and wherever their acts are committed.”
“love the homosexual? what does that mean. it means do not hurt them, do not go down to their level. but to accept no thats not part of loving them. they make me sick but I must put up with them. I feel sorry for them.”
“sue the descrimination board should be a reply and i have a baseball bat if that dosn’t get justice.”
Um yeah.
Jack, the UK and Canada do have religious freedom protections/rights so I wouldn’t rely too much on the fact that two of these stories were not based in the US. The difference between interracial marriage or interfaith marriages is that they are not sins and have never been. Homosexuality has a tendency to violate the dignity of the other person – it reduces the other person to a sexual object. Interracial or interfaith marriages do not harm the individuals involved. From my perspective, homosexual marriage is not possible – the two words cannot go together because marriage implies a man and a woman.
I agree that it is not solely the homosexual community that is engaged in activities (such as IVF) that affect life issues that have moral consequences, but the legalizing of marriage will only contribute to and multiply these problems.
I agree Jack those comments are awful and extreme and that one person slandered St. Augustine. They have not articulated their point of view very well.
“Jack, the UK and Canada do have religious freedom protections/rights so I wouldn’t rely too much on the fact that two of these stories were not based in the US. The difference between interracial marriage or interfaith marriages is that they are not sins and have never been. Homosexuality has a tendency to violate the dignity of the other person – it reduces the other person to a sexual object. Interracial or interfaith marriages do not harm the individuals involved. From my perspective, homosexual marriage is not possible – the two words cannot go together because marriage implies a man and a woman.”
The UK and Canada don’t have the sweeping religious protections that the US does, not to the extent that we do. Neither are their free speech laws as broad as the US. It’s a good thing, that we have these protections.
The thing is, interracial and interfaith marriage IS considered a sin in some religions. You didn’t answer the question, you just sideswiped it. If someone had considered, say, me and my ex’s marriage immoral since she’s white and I am mixed, and she’s a Christian and I’m not, do you think it should be legal for us to be denied lodging or other services based on the religious convictions of the people who are providing those services?
I’m very glad you don’t agree with those comments Tyler, but I didn’t think you would. I don’t think you are an unloving person, I just tend not to agree with you a lot lol.
Jack, I wouldn’t be too quick to overlook the implications of the two U.S. cases provided.
I definitely don’t think you and your wife (or any other similarly situated couple) should be denied accomodation.
From my perspective, homosexual couples are not the same as interracial couples. To me homosexuality is a behaviour while race is not.
Homosexual couples are also different from interfaith couples but for a different reason because both homosexuality and faith can result in a immoral behaviour or action. Certain faiths can cause people to do some very rephresensible actions which may cause to me alter my opinion about whether I would want an interfaith couple to reside in my hypothetical B&B. Since a person’s faith can and often does have moral implications I would not want to have to welcome an interfaith couple in my B&B if one the persons in the marriage believed in child sacrifices, for example. I think I, or any business person, should be able to refuse this child sacrificing person/couple. I am not comparing homosexuality to a faith that sacrifices children, save that both would result in sinful actions – obviously sacrificing a child is worse than having homosexual sex.
For these reasons, I think the B&B’s owner’s religious faith should be considered in this situation.
Although some religions may believe that interracial and interfaith marriages are sinful doesn’t alter my argument for a few reasons. First, I believe the Catholic faith provides the perfect teaching with respect to morals. Second, I am not aware of any religions that actually believe that interracial or interfaith marriages are sinful.
Finally, with all that said, I would personally recommend that a Catholic welcome the homosexual couple into their B&B even if it were legal to discriminate based on sexual inclination.
Wow. Isnt this rather harsh?
Yeah phillymiss, I can see where this Bishop is coming from on the first four at least, the last one doesn’t seem to make sense to me. I just can’t see a loving God going “oh well, thanks for protecting unborn babies and all, but you voted yes on that one gay marriage statute so off to hell you go!” lol. And honestly, I can think of a million other things that it seems like are just as “immoral” and soul-jeopardizing as supporting gay rights. What about torture, unjust war, killing of civilians, drones, etc etc etc? Are those deaths not as important as unborn babies?
All right Tyler, I do understand your position a bit better, thank you for explaining. And I am glad you would recommend that a Catholic B&B owner welcome a gay couple, I think that shows a lot more of Christian love then telling them to begone. I do think that you don’t understand that people of other religions hold their specific morality as just as important to them and as perfect as Catholic morality. I am not asking you to agree with it, but it’s kind of against the spirit AND the letter of the religious freedom laws of the US if the government agreed with you, that Catholic morality is best and that’s what should be legally enforced. You see?
The bishop has properly articulated Catholic teaching. Of course there are numerous issues to consider, but some issues are non-negotiable because they involve intrinsic evils. Yes, homosexual “marriage” is intrinsically evil. It is a clear and obvious distortion of the natural law and a mockery of God’s plan. Because of this I don’t think I should be required to recognize it. Live and let live, but don’t involve me by having government bless homosexual “marriages”.
Ex-GOP is not Catholic? Huge sigh of relief. Usually the most sinister left-wing dissemblers end up being Catholics. It’s painful.
Jack, a few quick words about drones, unjust wars, killing civilians, and torture – these would have to be going on for the Church to be required to make a pronouncement about them. If there was truly an unjust war going on that America was participating in, it would be considered an evil, and added to the list of non-negotiables written by the Bishop. But right now, the Church does not think that America is involved in an unjust war. So because these problems need to be occuring and need to be discerned to be unjust they are not, by default, put on the list of non-negotiables. Abortion and the other items on the list, on the otherhand, are permanently and intrinsically unjust and are therefore evil. For example, abortion is always wrong because, by definition, it is the intentional killing of a child. (Even when the Mother’s life is in danger a Doctors should not be intentionally trying to kill the fetus but instead they should be trying to save the Mother and the baby - which is why some Catholic prolifers say that the exception for the life of the mother is not necessary – a doctor is in business to save both lives.)
Jack, I don’t see holding Catholic morals as a perfect standard as being inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the first amendment. The Constitution was created and formed by a morality, a Christian morality, that was for intents and purposes Catholic morality. The Constitution does not exist in a world without morality, and if it ever does, this amorality will be just as imposing as any morality. In my opinion, it is wrong to think that US Constitution solely promotes liberty without any reference to morality. Liberty without morality is the tyranny of the powerful, money interest. Perhaps it is not obvious yet, but it will soon be. There is always a morality that is being imposed on others.
God is wise and loving. If He said no, He means it, and for good reason. Using our human minds and hearts to determine homosexuality isn’t so bad because it doesn’t really hurt anyone … Woh – let’s all be very careful. This is complicity in people’s sin, which separates them from God – not loving. It is also trusting in ourselves rather than God. Are you really saying “Hey God, creator of all things – homosexuality can’t be that bad because it doesn’t hurt anyone.” Is it God’s wisdom or His love that we doubt?
“What about torture, unjust war, killing of civilians, drones, etc etc etc? Are those deaths not as important as unborn babies?”
Also important, but the issues are not as transparent.
Jack, Catholics will always propose our morality peacefully, and if it is refused we will accept our persecution.
Catholics may appear to be on the losing side, but don’t forget Catholics have been around for two thousand years and have survived many persecutions. Finally, from the eternal perspective no faithful Catholic loses.
Lifejoy, I agree, we should never be complicit in another’s sin of homosexuality or any other. We should always try to bring the person back to moral life, through loving counsel and admonishments. For example, a just law forbiding abortion is a handy admonishment in addition to being a deterent.
“Jack, I don’t see holding Catholic morals as a perfect standard as being inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the first amendment. The Constitution was created and formed by a morality, a Christian morality, that was for intents and purposes Catholic morality. The Constitution does not exist in a world without morality, and if it ever does, this amorality will be just as imposing as any morality. In my opinion, it is wrong to think that US Constitution solely promotes liberty without any reference to morality. Liberty without morality is the tyranny of the powerful, money interest. Perhaps it is not obvious yet, but it will soon be. There is always a morality that is being imposed on others. ”
Not exactly… freedom of religion is just that. It doesn’t mean “total freedom to follow some form of Christianity, and we might somewhat be okay with other religions as long as we decide we are okay with their morality.” Now, I do agree that some form of ethics is always being enforced in a civilized society, the trick is (in my opinion) to allow for the maximum amount of liberty while still protecting others from harm. You and I have had this conversation before, and we just fundamentally disagree. You see the law of the land as some form of societal teacher, and I see the law’s only real place as preventing people from harming each other while pursuing whatever personal morals and goals they might have. I don’t think we are going to agree if we have a fundamental disagreement on what law and government are supposed to be doing.
Nobody is persecuting Catholics by refusing to accept your morals. That’s really not persecution lol.
Jack, freedom of religion doesn’t allow an American citizen to sacrifice a child even if it is part of a person’s religion, because the right to life protects the child from the other person imposing their religion on them. Not all religions or all secularists would view the rights in this order. Some would say the freedom to exercise religion trumps everything and permits them to kill – traditional Christianity and traditional Judaism do not allow their religion to override the commandment not to kill found in their religion! The fact that the US Constitution does not list the right to life is absurd since every American knows that it is the fundamental right.
The very ordering of American liberties is morally inspired, and formed based on Judeo-Christian values. In fact, any ordering or prioritizing involves some kind of moral judgment.
BTW, for clarification, I would request the homosexual couple to sleep in separate bedrooms and discuss with them my beliefs as I would with an unmarried couple.
Furthermore, our fallen nature has caused many of us to view sexuality incorrectly and to objectify people. This objectification takes place as result of homosexual desires and heterosexual desires. But only hetersexual sexual activity produces children.
Puriity and chastity are important. Chastity and purity are the virtues that overcome the more base sexual desires that objectify people.
Jack we may be able to find some common ground because I agree that protecting people from harm is one of the reasons to have good laws. That is one of the reasons the Catholic church supports traditional marriage. The Catholic church sees homosexuality as harming the person who practices it, and as harming the person who is the object of that act. Yet even though this ability of the law to protect individuals from harm is important it is not the only reason that laws exist. In fact, it would be irresponsible and disingenuous to outright ignore the pedagogical reasons for the law to exist.
Catholics are persecuted when they are not allowed to practice their faith in full, or are restricited in proclaiming it. The Church respects the freedom of conscience, but not the freedom to do evil.
“Jack, freedom of religion doesn’t allow an American citizen to sacrifice a child even if it is part of a person’s religion, because the right to life protects the child from the other person imposing their religion on them. Not all religions or all secularists would view the rights in this order. Some would say the freedom to exercise religion trumps everything and permits them to kill – traditional Christianity and traditional Judaism do not allow their religion to override the commandment not to kill found in their religion! The fact that the US Constitution does not list the right to life is absurd since every American knows that it is the fundamental right.”
No, religious liberty is certainly curtailed at the extremes. I have never disagreed this is the case and I quite support this curtailment. I also think the Constitution should be amended to have a right to life clause, beginning at conception.
I will say that I am not sure that Christians think the right to life is as inviolate as you say. I am not trying to step on toes, but I have heard many Christians use their faith to support the death penalty, for example. This would be an example of a Judeo-Christian belief that I find very immoral and would like to see that curtailed. Of course that assumes I am understanding correctly that it’s a Judeo-Christian belief. It seems like there are a lot of anti-DP Catholics, which is awesome, but I don’t know if that is a Catholic position or simply something a lot of Catholics agree on.
“The very ordering of American liberties is morally inspired, and formed based on Judeo-Christian values. In fact, any ordering or prioritizing involves some kind of moral judgment.”
A lot of our liberties came from the secular Enlightenment and philosophers, not just religion. Not to say that religion didn’t play a huge role, but secular and deistic thought and philosophy did as well, like from Thomas Paine and John Locke. Look up Thomas Paine’s writing on transnational human rights and Locke’s social contract theory.
“Furthermore, our fallen nature has caused for many us to view sexuality incorrectly and to objectify people. This objectification takes place as result of homosexual desires and heterosexual desires. But only hetersexual sexual activity produces children.
Puriity and chastity are important. Chastity and purity are the virtues that overcome the more base sexual desires that objectify people.”
See, all that means nothing to me because I don’t share your specific viewpoint on the purpose of sexuality and how it should take place. I have never been “pure and chaste” lol and wouldn’t know where to start. It’s simply your and your church’s opinion. I think that many loving gays in monogamous relationships would take great offense to their love being characterized as objectification, but whatevs.
“Jack we may be able to find some common ground because I agree that protecting people from harm is one reason to have good laws. Catholic church sees homosexuality as harming the person who practices it, and as harming the person who is the object of that act. To ignore the pedagogical aspect of the law is, in my opinion, not only irresponsible but disingenuous. ”
Yeah, we do agree in that one reason to have good laws. You just go too far in my opinion, and try to baby adults and make their decisions for them legally. Even if homosexuality was damaging to consenting adults who practiced it (which I don’t see that it is), I wouldn’t want it illegal. I don’t think the legal system is the best way to regulate those type of behaviors. I feel the same way about drugs and plenty of other things that might harm consenting parties. I feel the law should step in when harm is being done to non-consenting parties, not adults who agree to take on the risks of their own behavior. That’s not to say I don’t support other social programs and such to help people in destructive lifestyles like drug addiction, but I don’t think criminalization is a positive way to do this.
But we have had this conversation and never ended up agreeing lol.
“Catholics are persecuted when they are not allowed to practice their faith in full, or are restriciting in proclaiming it. The Church respects the freedom of conscience, but not the freedom to do evil.”
Name a way that Catholics are not allowed to practice their faith in full (I do agree that the mandate is infringing your liberties, but otherwise I can’t think of a way you all are being prevented from practicing your faith). Gay marriage being legal is not you being persecuted and does not prevent Catholics from practicing anything.
Ugh, it won’t let me edit. I meant Thomas Hobbes, not John Locke. Locke’s views were generally derived from his religious views and were heavily influenced by Hobbes’s views of social contract theory. Hobbes had strong opinions that were against the orthodoxy of the church at the time, his writings tend to be more secular. But whatev history isn’t my strongest subject and it’s too early.
but I don’t know if that is a Catholic position or simply something a lot of Catholics agree on.
Hey Jack, Regarding the Catholic beliefs on capital punishment, I found this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. (2306)
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
Oh, thank you Praxedes. I actually completely agree with Catholic doctrine on the death penalty then. :).
You are welcome, Jack. I enjoy reading your comments. Hope all is well with you and your family.
Marriage is’ the union of a man and a woman. Homosexuals can clamor and scream for the redefinition of marriage but it will always be quite impossible for them to achieve ‘equality’ with heterosexual unions. It is sad to watch them try because in doing so they must necessarily attempt to destroy the sanctity of heterosexual marriage in the process by denying it any difference at all.
Someone asked if the Bishop’s statement might be considered ”harsh”. Well, actually the answer to that is both yes and no. Yes, in that in our day people don’t like to be told what they are doing may be objectively immoral hence they may find it uncomfortable (harsh, if you will) to hear someone speaking forcefully against it. No, in that it is the job of a Bishop to defend the flock from false teachings which in our day are brought to us mainly by the secularists. In the view of secularists morals are relative. In other words nothing is really objectively immoral. The “bishops” if you will of secularism are to be found primarily in places of honor in academia, although certainly not limited to that.
All of the Bishops should be saying basically the same thing. Many in fact are doing just that. Here in Illinois Bishop Paprocki (who also happens to be an attorney) of the Diocese of Springfield issued a thoughtful analysis of the two platforms the respective parties drafted. He found the Democrats’ platform to have glaring deficiencies in the areas of abortion and so called homo “marriage”. He concluded, much as did Bishop Ricken, that consciously supporting that platform and/or the candidates that wholly embrace the intrinsic evils contained therein could result in that individual jeopardizing the loss of their soul. He concluded that the Republican platform had no such glaring deficiencies.
Is this discussion tripping over the importance of natural marriage?
Marriage is a life issue. It is every bit as important as abortion, even though abortion does much more immediate, bloody damage than marriage confusion does. Natural marriage is the foundation of human culture, so strong marriages and families are necessary if our children will have a thriving culture to live in.
Marriage is the primordial human institution. It is older than any government or any religion.
When the first humans discovered the reality of religion, they immediately realized that marriage is “sacred.” The bonding of a man and woman is a unique and spiritual relationship. The ability to create new life together is profound. The first purpose of religion was to bless marriages.
When humans invented the first tribal governments, we realized that marriage serves the common good. Birthing children and seeing them raised well is necessary for the survival of every culture. So governments have always arranged special protections to preserve natural marriages and protect families.
We may already be past the point of cultural survival. Contraception, abortion, no-fault divorce, pre-marital sex, and the widespread rejection of traditional marriage may already mean that our culture is dead or doomed.
This modern enthusiasm for redefining the reality of marriage and family is missing something very important: No one has explained how the recognition of alternative relationships serves the common good.
To be very simple:
– Natural families produce the children and raise them well, a cultural process that is necessary to perpetuate our culture. And so, our culture (like every healthy culture) offers recognition and assistance to natural families.
– Alternative family structures do not provide the culture-sustaining necessities that demand special protection and recognition from the culture.
In fairness and justice, we should not prosecute or persecute the persons who indulge in the same-sex lifestyle. But they have not yet explained how official recognition of their habits serve the public good in a way that is equivalent to natural marriage.
Jack, you have shown me that a person’s evangelization will only work on a few people, the heavy lifting has to be done by God.
I have to say that it has been a pleasure getting to know you, and to see your ideas and opinions evolve. I wish you all the best and I am glad that things appear to be looking up for you. Please remember if you are ever in need you can always go to a Catholic Church to find a friend and brother. He is there in the Eucharist, just be sure to observe that the candle by the tabernacle is lit – it usually is.
If you ever tire of reading the same old story, remember to pick up the Bible and read the Gospels where Christ your eternal brother can tell you about our true Dad if you ever want to know about Him.
“Jack, you have shown me that aperson’s evangelization will only work on a few people, the heavy lifting has to be done by God”
I have no idea what this means lol. And its been good to get to know you too.
“Please remember if you are ever in need you can always go to a Catholic Church to find a friend and brother.”
People always say stuff like that, lol, but I really can’t see me running up to some random church and being like “I’m having a hard time, talk to me”. Do people actually do that?
Jack, I am positive that one day you will know. Jack, the friend at the Church wants to speak to you; for the most part, you just have to go there and listen with your heart, mind, soul. Feel free to share your pain with him, he knows all about it. Lastly, when at the Church, if you feel up to it, spend a few moments contemplating on the fact that the Church considers the Crucifix a picture of happiness.
Ah Tyler, he’s never much listened or cared about me before, I don’t see that he’s gonna start now. I’m glad yall find that peace but I don’t think it is for me.
Jack, did you ever begin to read Confessions?
Jack, why don’t you think the peace is there for you?
No I haven’t, I haven’t had much time for reading and I think Confessions might be above my reading level anyway.
Because there never has been before. And I have tried, I don’t know how I could have prayed harder or begged more for help as a kid. But it never worked for me. I recently have tried praying and surprise surprise it is just the same thing.
Hi Tyler,
What about gay people who marry and try to live the straight life, which includes having children? The straight spouse dies or leaves and the gay parent raises the children.
With all the family dysfunction, I would think gay parents wouldn’t be such an issue.
There have always been gay parents. Is there an issue with single actress Mia Farrow adopting so many children, many of whom are special needs? How about Angelina Jolie who is bisexual? Her children have a father and mother.
Hi Del, 6;51PM
I’m not so certain marriage was seen as something sacred. Marriages were, and still are arranged, girls were sold into marriage, it sealed alliances and political bonds, it was a “duty”, it guaranteed succession. Even in early Europe marriages were performed by magistrates, not clergy. There could be multiple wives, or husbands. There were harems, concubines, mistresses, whorehouses, Wives enjoyed their dalliances as well.
Mary,
I would say at least one of those examples is a good argument for trying to find a mate before you gather children into a family unit. News headlines describe case after case of a non-biological mate having problems with the kids they see as obstacles.
And the other possibility is someone like Woody Allen falling for your adopted daughter.
Jack, give it a shot to see if it is beyond your reading level.
—–
Mary,
The answer to your question depends on how a person views the human person/human nature. For me, a person is not defined or determined by their sexuality. A person has a free will. There are only sexual temptations according to my understanding of human beings; in this sense, homosexuality does not exist per se, it is only the temptation to experience sexual gratification with a person of the same gender. This means there is no such thing as bisexuality, etc… as well. All sexual temptations or lusts are innate, and can be said to be natural, but we human beings are called to a higher purpose and have been given the gifts to overcome these temptations in order that we may achieve our higher purpose which is union with God, eternal life in his Kingdom. If a person realizes that this is their ultimate goal in life why would they want to settle for anything less? Mary, if you can honestly say that you are happy with this life and that you don’t desire a better more perfect life then we will not have much to talk about. But if you recognize that this life is far from perfect and does not satisfy us, and does not provide us with everlasting happiness then you will understand what I am talking about. If you ever thought for a moment that the God actually does love you, don’t you want to find out all you can about him and what he wants for your life?
On a practical level, Scripture has revealed to us that God intended men and women to be together and our reason confirms that this is true. Reason discerns from our human nature that God intended men and women to be together.
“What about torture, unjust war, killing of civilians, drones, etc etc etc? Are those deaths not as important as unborn babies? ”
are you saying that our soldiers are delibrately killing civilians and torturing people?
People always say stuff like that
I was thinking about saying stuff like that this morning to you Jack but didn’t want to be pushy (I know that I can be and worry that I come off too strong and scare people away) so I am glad Tyler jumped in here. People are saying stuff like that to you because they are seeing stuff like that in you. Stuff meaning spiritual workings.
Do people actually do that?
They do. I had fallen away from the Catholic Church for many years and was too embarrassed to go back to the parish in my area. One weekend when the kids were at their dad’s for the weekend, I was especially down and lonely. I went driving around and ended up in a town 45 minutes away. I passed a Catholic Church and saw that people were entering for Mass. I drove in the parking lot (led by the Spirit) and sat in the back row of the church.
I was so nervous thinking everyone would stare at me and think I was so different from them. I didn’t know a soul but everyone was so friendly and non-judgmental. They didn’t ask me any personal questions or make me feel uncomfortable. I felt right at home and this gave me the courage I needed to walk back into my area parish. Shortly after, I got to know my parish priest who immensely helped me get back on track.
Like Tyler says, you can walk into any Catholic Church when there is not Mass going on, too. Look for the tabernacle candle. Confessions is above my reading level but I got a lot out of it. Just reading what you write here, Jack, we can all see how intelligent you are.
Because there never has been before. And I have tried, I don’t know how I could have prayed harder or begged more for help as a kid.
http://llerrah.com/footprints.htm
Ditto - to what Praxedes said.
“are you saying that our soldiers are delibrately killing civilians and torturing people”
Nope, that wasn’t what I was saying. But thousands of Iraqi and Afghani citizens have died in a war I don’t believe we ever should have been in, at least not the way we went about it. I don’t blame the soldiers for doing their best in a war that they have been sent out to do. I do blame the people in charge who put us there. I really don’t want to get into my anti-war sentiments on this blog, I really, really try to avoid that lol.
“I was thinking about saying stuff like that this morning to you Jack but didn’t want to be pushy (I know that I can be and worry that I come off too strong and scare people away) so I am glad Tyler jumped in here. People are saying stuff like that to you because they are seeing stuff like that in you. Stuff meaning spiritual workings.”
I don’t think you come across as pushy, just very convicted in your beliefs. Tyler I used to get mad at but he’s grown on me lol. And I don’t know, I have really been trying to figure out what I believe lately and it does help to have y’all answer my questions and talk to me about it.
I like that you found some help and peace in that church, that is a really nice helpful story. I don’t know, I feel stupid but I am honestly afraid of churches (or the people in them, most likely). It’s my fault, it’s just nervousness left over from being all cult raised and everything but I’m not sure how to relax about it. I visited a church like last month and I just felt terrible, lol. Everyone seems like they fit in and I really don’t.
That link really choked me up. Thank you.
Jack – God promises we will find Him when we seek Him with all our heart. I do hope you find a congregation to encourage you at some point, but please don’t let your understandable church anxiety hinder your relationship with your Savior. I hope you don’t mind me interjecting in this way, but I just want to tell you that God loves you.
Hi Hans,
Sadly the situation we saw with Farrow is a story as old as the human race, and occured in a heterosexual relationship, as do many situations of problems with a non biolgical parent. Sadly, one cannot always forsee the behavior of the people we love and trust, and that includes mates.
The Woody Allen situation does not detract from the home and love Farrow, a single mother, has provided for so many children in need.
The Woody Allen situation does not detract from the home and love Farrow, a single mother, has provided for so many children in need.
But it sure did when he was in it!
Screwed up things happen in families with both bio parents still married too, though. It’s not something that confined to non-traditional family structures.
Ex-RINO says: June 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm “For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Ex-RINO says: June 11, 2012 at 7:56 am “…at the end of the day, I’m more likely than not to vote DemocrRAT…”
Ex-RINO says September 6, 2012 at 8:41pm “I’ve actually started to seriously think about not voting this election.”
Ex-RINO says September 9, 2012 at 8:27pm “I’ve far from decided what I’m going to do this election… I can’t vote for Romney. But beyond that, I’m still deciding.”
Ex-RINO says October 27, 2012 at 11:12 am
”So a well meaning Christian can’t argue that marriage, as defined by the Government, is different than marriage, as defined by the church?”
‘Well meaning christian’ or not, you make the argument constantly, but the difficulty for you comes when you have to re-concile your political sensibilities with biblical principles.
Mr. Ricken did not prohibit participating in the political discussion but he did draw the line at voting/supporting political candidates who advocate for the secular government adopting policies that are in contradiction to GOD’s will as revealed in the ‘book’ .
What don’t you understand about the biblical prohibition against ‘murder’?
History is repleat with examples of “well meaning christians” who have done some mighty despicable things in the name of a god they fashionend in their own image.
xalisae says October 27, 2012 at 6:09 pm
“So let me go vote for someone who would’ve cheered on my wife and I had we chosen to have my 2 year old killed 2 and a half years ago.”
[Or 730 days ago, the day the child survived the assassins first attemp on his/her life and then was murderd by the hand of the abortionists or murdered by abandonment and/or neglect.]
X,
perdoname, but I don’t believe you accurately relfected b o’s stated view on the newborn infant and by extension, our resident ‘well meaning christian’, EX-RINO.
Mary,
I’m not against single-parent adoption. I have two nephews from the Ukraine.
Jack,
Is it too late for you to be retroactively adopted? ;)
Screwed up things happen in families with both bio parents still married too, though.
I know this firsthand. Statistically speaking though I think children are better off with both bio parents still married and raising their bio kids together.
Lol Hans, Carla has already internet adopted me. I just need an internet dad and I am all set for parental replacements :p
Adam:
The Catholic church doesn’t have any more predators in their ranks than any other organization with access to children. They are sadly about par for the course. I don’t think they did a good job at all with abuse cases, but neither have many other organizations (look up the Boy Scouts and the problems they have had, it’s at least as horrifying as the Catholic abuse scandals).
And do some study on cults and get back to us if you think Catholicism in general is a cult. Cults are generally horrible things and no mainstream religion comes close to the damage they inflict.
^don’t know why I am bothering, I think this dude’s just trolling, but it should be said.
Gee, I can’t imagine where Adam’s comment went. ;)
I scooped Jack up awhile ago. :)
So glad I did!!
Thank you, your Grace, Bishop Ricken!!!
This is what Catholics have really been needing to hear for a very very long time.
I would also hope there are Bishops, especially Bishop Gomez in California, who can stress the importance of voting in favor of protecting life, as opposed to voting in favor of immigration.
If you vote for Obama, especially as a Catholic, you are in Schism with God’s will, and I hate to say this, but you’re on the road to perdition, (that’s means hell).
Hell is real. Demons are real. Satan is real.
Immigration is being used within the church, by feux Catholics to promote the intolerance of the Republican Party within certain ethnic groups this election cycle.
In Los Angeles, there was a rumor going around that the GOP was going to require voters show their birth certificates, thus barring alot of immigrants from voting. That rumor, and the idea that that immigration reform is at the top of the list this election, needs to be debunked.
Immigration reform is important, but the Obamanation has it as a cleaver dividing the faithful from within.
Obama has increased the abortion rate. Romney will reduce the abortion rate.
Obamanomics promotes abortion and birth control as bullet point on the economic run-down for the HHS mandate. Abortion has nothing to do with helping women. It’s about reducing the population in favor of federal fiscal policy.
Obama has also helped install a Planned Parenthood in Mexico City Mexico, not far from St. Jaun Diego’s Tilma. He did this not only by changing US policy, (the same thing Clinton did), but BHO also gave Planned Parenthood American tax dolllars and the political foray to set up shop there. They are a chain abortuary. You think they are going to stop with one Planned Parenthood?? Mexican’s beware. You may think your family is safe, and you will protect them, but these guys will get into your schools. That is what they have done here, and they will not stop until they have aborted at least one or two of your grandchildren. Are you willing to sacrifice that for another “immigration reform,” bone from the Obamanation? Don’t chase the immigration reform carrot. Vote for the sure thing. Vote for life. No exception.
We can’t even get the real facts and figures on the alarming rise in abortions since Obama took office, because this administration has been so dishonest.
Here, this news article proves that it was on the rise in 2008-2009. So you can only imagine what the widespread of abortion on demand under Obama has done to the numbers in the past four years.
More here
Hi Hans, 12:39PM
I was just making a point that any parent(s) are preferable to none and there is no ideal situation everywhere all the time.
Hi JackBorsch 12:55PM
There is in fact news of a scandal concerning the abuse of Boy Scouts over the years. Certainly no one has a monopoly on child sexual abuse.
Speaking of two parent homes, man and woman, does anyone suppose that Mrs.Sandusky knew she was marrying a child sexual predator? What did she know and when did she know it? How about their six adopted children, one of whom Sandusky molested? Is this news to them? Wasn’t Sandusky everyone’s ideal?
All that glitters is not gold.
“Speaking of two parent homes, man and woman, does anyone suppose that Mrs.Sandusky knew she was marrying a child sexual predator? What did she know and when did she know it? How about their six adopted children, one of whom Sandusky molested? Is this news to them? Wasn’t Sandusky everyone’s ideal?”
Yup. My parents have been married for almost forty years and still, they were both terribly abusive. I would always rather kids grow up raised by some nice gay couple or single woman than by a screwed up hetero family.
Jack, assuming the gay household will be happier or less dysfunctional is a huge leap to make from your own subjective experience. It is even worse to propose something as healthy or better without adequate evidence. Jack, I thought you were a secularist and would value having evidence before pronouncing something is good for the rest of society.
I don’t think you understood me Tyler. I didn’t pronounce a gay couple raising a kid, or a single parent raising a kid, as “better” in all or even most circumstances. I did say that I would rather a healthy gay couple or single parent raise a kid than see them with a terrible straight couple. I would have been a lot better off if someone had taken me from my parents and put me with someone else, whether they were straight, gay or single or not is irrelevant as long as they were kind. I objectively would have been better off than with my parents. That isn’t to say that *all* married bio parents are terrible, why in the world would I think that?
Jack, your line of reasoning brings us back to the beginning of our argument. You need to define what you mean by “good” and “healthy” when you use those terms to describe parents/couples (bio or homosexual).
I think your definition of ”good” and ”healthy” will be incomplete given that it is impossible for homosexual couples to model both male and female roles for their children. In some respects homosexual couples face the same problem as single parents, except they have an extra set of hands (if the single parent has not met someone new).
I have no idea what you mean by “male and female roles” to be honest. You would have to define that for me.
Are you seriously denying that I wouldn’t have been better off than pretty much anyone but my parents? No matter whether they were gay or not.
I figured that was coming Jack but I am surprised since you are a parent yourself. It is hard to deny the differences between boys and girls when you are a parent.
Walk into any preschool and you see, generally speaking, the girls sitting at the tables doing crafts and talking amongst themselves; while the boys are climbing over everything and everyone. If you can stop a boy from playing long enough you feel that you have achieved some lofty parenting goal, while the girl has completed 23 little drawings of her favorite flowers all made for Mom and Dad after a simple request.
The difference between males and females is a biological as well as a behavioral difference. Jack, when you deny the difference between males and famales you are just saying the politically correct thing and following what is trendy. Your question is similar in its blatant denial of the obvious to a question some prochoicers ask: what is the difference between life of the sperm/egg versus the life of an embryo?
Jack, I know for a fact that there would be people worse than your parents. I have read the newspapers and have heard many horror stories. However, I don’t believe there is only a gray sliding scale of right and wrong. There are somethings that parents can do that are just plain wrong – a threshold of wrong, so to speak, commandments that parents shouldn’t disobey. And your parents have disobeyed these commandments. The fact that there are worse parents/human beings in the world than your parents doesn’t mean that what your parents did was any less wrong. Nor do the actions of your parents make a generic homosexual couple right or fit to be parents.
“Walk into any preschool and you see, generally speaking, the girls sitting at the tables doing crafts and talking amongst themselves; while the boys are climbing over everything and everyone. If you can stop a boy from playing long enough you feel that you have achieved some lofty parenting goal, while the girl has completed 23 little drawings of her favorite flowers all made for Mom and Dad after a simple request.”
Both my kids are wild. My daughter is a bit more talkative and cuddly than my son, but maybe I just have a tomboy, or maybe it’s because she’s always spent more time with me than with my ex, but I haven’t noticed any huge differences. They both play with dolls, and they both play with trucks. And neither of them listen to a word I say! I haven’t really been around kids other than mine ever though.
“The difference between males and females is a biological as well as a behavioral difference. Jack, when you deny the difference between males and famales you are just saying the politically correct thing and following what is trendy. Your question is similar in its blatant denial of the obvious to a question some prochoicers ask: what is the difference between life of the sperm/egg versus the life of an embryo?”
I didn’t deny it, I said that you would have to define it for me what you mean by “male and female roles”. What differences between men and women are you talking about? I’m not a particularly “macho” guy, so I have always viewed gender roles with a kind of “whatever” attitude. I don’t really fit them, haven’t met a ton of people who do. I have only noticed a few trends that seem to hold true for men and women, and still people don’t tend to fit them. I also don’t like that because there might be some trends that hold true for males and females, that people think that others *have* to follow them.
“Jack, I know for a fact that there would be people worse than your parents. I have read the newspapers and have heard many horror stories. However, I don’t believe there is only a gray sliding scale of right and wrong. There are somethings that parents can do that are just plain wrong – a threshold of wrong, so to speak, commandments that parents shouldn’t disobey. And your parents have disobeyed these commandments. The fact that there are worse parents/human beings in the world than your parents doesn’t mean that what your parents did was any less wrong. Nor do the actions of your parents make a generic homosexual couple right or fit to be parents.”
Lol, I was clearly being hyperbolic. No my parents aren’t the worst people in the world. They aren’t very good though. If you were like a children’s service worker and decided to leave me with my parents because the only option to place me would be with a gay couple, there would be something seriously wrong with you. You would be complicit in child abuse. I don’t know why it’s hard for you to understand. That’s all I was saying. Even if you could prove somehow (and you haven’t proven it, not at all) that gays make less fit parents than married straight couples, if they are willing to take kids that need a home that otherwise are just getting bounced around in foster care then I will support that. There are thousands of kids in foster care, plenty that are up for adoption but are too old/have other problems and aren’t getting taken. If gay people are willing to adopt those precious kids and keep them safe and taken care of, I’m all for it.
Jack, what kind of dolls do your children play with? What are the differences that you do see between your daughter and son?
Jack your ”cuddly” daughter doesn’t exactly sound like a tomboy. Neither is “talkativenes” a tomboy trait!
The issue is not whether some people feel oppressed by societal notions of male or female roles, but what contributes or make’s society even conceive that there are different roles for men or women in the first place. Perhaps there is some vast conspiracy that nobody knows about, but is happening nonetheless. Or perhaps there are just natural differences between the two sexes that society/people intuitively pick up on. I leave it to you think about which explanation is more reasonable.
Current the media is really trying to push back against our intuitive knowledge of the differences, some people are falling for it. I guess it is true, if you repeat something often enough you can get people to believe. We need to tell people to stop consuming so much TV and pop culture.
Jack stop setting up false choices. The choice is not between your acknowledged bad parents and a gay couple – the choice should between a heterosexual couple and homosexual couple, with no other qualifying adjectives. If you’re going to put the word “bad” in front of one of those couples, of course, it is going to skew the result, and who you would want the child to be raised with. But that is not how this should be decided. I could easily formulate the question: If you were like a children’s service worker and decided to leave me with a bad homosexual couple because the only other option to place me would be with my good parents, there would be something seriously wrong with you. In short, you have determined the answer in how you formulated the question.
Jack, I mentioned the study and provided you with a common sense argument: how can a “gay” couple model both the female and male roles for their children? They can’t. Hence, they deny that these roles matter or exist. And the MSM has jumped on to support their cause without any proof with whether this unsubstantiated belief is true, and without acknowledging that this view that gender roles don’t exist is merely a belief system.
This hypocrisy of the pro-homosexual agenda is another reason why I appreciate the Christian community. The Christian community are at least honest enough to acknowledge that their worldview is a belief system. The pro-homosexual agenda tries to present their worldview as fact, when it clearly is not. Jack, you need to give your head a shake.
“Jack, what kind of dolls do your children play with? What are the differences that you do see between your daughter and son?”
They have baby dolls and action figures, why does that matter?
Differences? Idk my daughter is more violent lol, but she’s only almost two and my son is four so that might be a maturity thing. My daughter is better at entertaining herself than my son is, he wears me out while she will happily play by herself. My son likes music and the show Dora, my daughter likes Spongebob better ( or bobob as she calls it).
“Jack your ”cuddly” daughter doesn’t exactly sound like a tomboy. Neither is “talkativenes” a tomboy trait!”
Lol, I just formed that sentence poorly. I meant except for those two traits, being more cuddly and talkative, she seems like she will probably be a tomboy. She doesn’t seem to like to cuddle the baby dolls as much as my son does, she’d rather bash trucks around. But she’s only two just about, who knows what she will be up to in a couple years.
“The issue is not whether some people feel oppressed by societal notions of male or female roles, but what contributes or make’s society even conceive that there are different roles for men or women in the first place. Perhaps there is some vast conspiracy that nobody knows about, but is happening nonetheless. Or perhaps there are just natural differences between the two sexes that society/people intuitively pick up on. I leave it to you think about which explanation is more reasonable.”
I didn’t say anything about people being “oppressed” by gender notions. And really, you haven’t defined what differences you are talking about. Are you talking about how men are supposedly less emotional, better leaders, tough, etc etc etc… while women are supposedly more nurturing and emotional, better at supporting, etc etc? I don’t know about all that. Just because it’s expected doesn’t mean that people naturally fit into them based on gender. I have always been more nurturing than my ex, and she’s always been much less emotional than me.
“Jack stop setting up false choices. The choice is not between your acknowledged bad parents and a gay couple – the choice should between a heterosexual couple and homosexual couple, with no other qualifying adjectives. If you’re going to put the word “bad” in front of one of those couples, of course, it is going to skew the result, and who you would want the child to be raised with. But that is not how this should be decided. I could easily formulate the question: If you were like a children’s service worker and decided to leave me with a bad homosexual couple because the only other option to place me would be with my good parents, there would be something seriously wrong with you. In short, you have determined the answer in how you formulated the question.”
Because that’s what we were talking about! Lol. I was specifically talking about how I would prefer a decent gay couple to raise a kid, specifically to raise me as a kid, than a bad heterosexual couple! But since you want to know, if it were between a hetero and homo couple and neither of them were better than the other, I honestly wouldn’t care which the kid went to as long as the kid had a home.
“Jack, I mentioned the study and provided you with a common sense argument: how can a “gay” couple model both the female and male roles for their children? They can’t. Hence, they deny that these roles matter or exist. And the MSM has jumped on to support their cause without any proof with whether this unsubstantiated belief is true, and without acknowledging that this view that gender roles don’t exist is merely a belief system.”
Who is claiming it’s definitive that gender roles exist in this conversation? I haven’t, though I am quite skeptical of the idea and I don’t think I would fit into whatever crap you think a “man” is supposed to be. I can’t really tell you what I think if you won’t define what you are talking about.
“This hypocrisy of the pro-homosexual agenda is another reason why I appreciate the Christian community. The Christian community are at least honest enough to acknowledge that their worldview is a belief system. The pro-homosexual agenda tries to present their worldview as fact, when it clearly is not. Jack, you need to give your head a shake.”
Omg I almost died laughing. Are you joking? Christians certainly seem to put forth their worldview as fact. Like, constantly. Not to say that is a bad thing, because why believe something if you don’t think it’s true. But you can’t accuse the gay community of putting forth their view as fact and claim that your community doesn’t.
Jack, you have chosen the atheist side, you are not ignorant of the Christian worldview, you’ve simply chosen not to accept it.
You answered your own question about the “dolls” (which included action figures) by conveniently saying who plays with what.
Your ambivalent attitude towards which home a child resides in shamelessly disregards tradition, history, and natural law – which is to say, that your worldview is atheistic. An atheistic worldview which is going to be imposed on the child, just as much as any Christian worldview has been. Simply put, you prefer the lack of values of the atheistic worldview/belief system. This is a hard road to live, and I am not sure it will bring happiness.
Jack, I appreciate that you acknowledge that your views reflect a belief system and that you acknowledge that the pro-homosexual marriage community are actively trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of society (children are part of society) by changing the laws.
Jack, what is just as disturbing as legalizing homosexual marriage is the way the government has pushed Catholic and Christian adoption agencies out of operation. This assault on freedom is extreme, and needs to be explained and justified. Why is the government forcing these agencies to place children with homosexual couples (which means violating their conscience) or to close shop?
Where is the live and let live philosophy? Where is the tolerance of different beliefs by the pro-gay marriage supporters?
I don’t know about you, but I see so much potential abuse of the system it is not even funny. I don’t know why no one has even looked at from this angle. These new laws have made and will make it much easier for all the perverts out there to misuse the system. Dr. Kinsey and his pals must be trying to eek out a smile from their devilish abode. From the privacy laws to the laws that “liberate” sexuality Western society is making a dangerous mixture of laws.
“Jack, you have chosen the atheist side, you are not ignorant of the Christian worldview, you’ve simply chosen not to accept it.
You answered your own question about the “dolls” (which included action figures) by conveniently saying who plays with what.”
They both play with all the dolls.
I can’t accept the Christian view until it makes sense to me and I actually feel something.
“Your ambivalent attitude towards which home a child resides in shamelessly disregards tradition, history, and natural law – which is to say, that your worldview is atheistic. An atheistic worldview which is going to be imposed on the child, just as much as any Christian worldview has been. Simply put, you prefer the lack of values of the atheistic worldview/belief system. This is a hard road to live, and I am not sure it will bring happiness.”
You haven’t proven anything. You have put forward assertions and expect me to take them at face value.
You’re rude. I have values. You just refuse to take them seriously, as always, because some Supreme Being isn’t my authority for them.
“Jack, I appreciate that you acknowledge that your views reflect a belief system and that you acknowledge that the pro-homosexual marriage community are actively trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of society (children are part of society) by changing the laws.”
They are no more imposing their views on society than Christians are.
“Jack, what is just as disturbing as legalizing homosexual marriage is the way the government has pushed Catholic and Christian adoption agencies out of operation. This assault on freedom is extreme, and needs to be explained and justified. Why is the government forcing these agencies to place children with homosexual couples (which means violating their conscience) or to close shop?
Where is the live and let live philosophy? Where is the tolerance of different beliefs by the pro-gay marriage supporters?”
I think we already argued about this one. I don’t agree with private agencies being forced to adopt to gay couples. I do think that if gay couples are intolerant by wanting Catholic agencies to adopt t0 them, then Christian agencies are intolerant for not wanting to adopt out.
“I don’t know about you, but I see so much potential abuse of the system it is not even funny. I don’t know why no one has even looked at from this angle. These new laws have made and will make it much easier for all the perverts out there to misuse the system. Dr. Kinsey and his pals must be trying to eek out a smile from their devilish abode. From the privacy laws to the laws that “liberate” sexuality Western society is making a dangerous mixture of laws”
Explain how any current laws make it easier for “perverts” to misuse the system.
I apologize for the point I am about to make because it comes from a TV show. When I used to watch TV years ago for things aside from the news I used to watch Law & Order – the original and Special Victims Unit series. I found that those programs always left an impression. One episode from SVU discussed adult men who victimized children. In the show, adult men would collude in order to obtain children, they even had a group. In the show, one of the men purposely married a woman in order to have children, and then proceeded to violate his own children. Other men in show swapped children, others were Big Brothers, another was a piano teacher, one was a step-Dad, etc… and one adopted a child. The episode presented these men as organized group fighting to legalize their behavior and their abuse of children.
Yes Law & Order sometimes over-dramatizes events, but often the events are artistic interpretations of real events. Given the fact that there was a recent meeting of a group similar to the one mentioned in the show that openly advocated that this child abuse should not be listed as a mental disorder and that it should be normalized, I don’t think the SVU show(s) were far off. (Please note the following links are news stories, but the story they report is very disturbing, even though it is NOT graphic.)
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/academic-conference-seeks-to-normalize-pedophilia/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/why-are-we-surprised-with-the-push-for-pedophile-rights/
Making adoption easier for homosexual couples, makes it easier for these men to pretend to feign relationships that don’t actually exist and thereby it puts children at risk.
Jack, how do we try to ensure that the adoption process can’t be abused in the above fashion.
Additionally, Jack, where do you draw the line at what relationships are healthy for a consenting adult? Are there any adult behaviors/relationships that aren’t good for the people involved even though they consented to it? Or does anything go, once you are an adult? Should the law only reflect our absolute freedom as adults, or should it provide some moral direction to adults about what constitutes good behavior? Should the law also teach adults some etiquette?
Jack, this article, also from Lifesitenews, was just published yesterday:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/why-homosexual-marriage-signals-the-end-of-heterosexual-rights
I think it was written to address some of your questions, about where this pro-homosexual marriage agenda is going. It is written by a former homosexual man.
“Jack, how do we try to ensure that the adoption process can’t be abused in the above fashion.”
Why stop there Tyler? Let’s just never let men have access to kids. Even their own, especially their own! Seeing as incest is I think the most common form of sexual abuse of children, and it normally happens in heterosexual family structures, I think it’s good policy to remove men from the child raising sphere all together. Oh, and women commit a fair percentage of molestations, mostly against boys. Women shouldn’t be allowed to raise boys. So, little boys can raise themselves and women can raise girls. That should work.
Of course I am being sarcastic, but come on man. Gay men really aren’t more likely as a group to molest kids than any other group as far as I can tell from looking at statistics. I don’t see how gay men or women adopting is going to make that bad. If a man really, really wants unlimited access to a child, he could always do what my dad did and marry a woman so he could have sons to abuse.
“Additionally, Jack, where do you draw the line at what relationships are healthy for a consenting adult? Are there any adult behaviors/relationships that aren’t good for the people involved even though they consented to it? Or does anything go, once you are an adult? Should the law only reflect our absolute freedom as adults, or should it provide some moral direction to adults about what constitutes good behavior? Should the law also teach adults some etiquette?”
I have told you, literally dozens of times, that I don’t think the legal system is the place to take care of self-destructive behaviors. Especially sexually self-destructive behaviors. I have a feeling that sleeping with a different person every night would be far more damaging than a monogamous gay relationship, but you don’t see anyone pushing to criminalize sluttiness or anything.
Jack, I never said gay men rape boys. Why did you go there?
I think you misunderstood my point.
It’s implied in the fact that you are so worried about gay people adopting because think of the children, but not worried about heterosexuals doing the same things that gays could do in that situation. At least in adoption there are criminal background checks, screenings, etc, that might lessen the possibility of abuse.
Jack, what is your solution to helping people from falling into self-destructive behaviors, or is your solution to simply let it happen, provide no prevention methods, and then try to fix the self-destructive behaviors as they manifest themselves? Isn’t that laid-back approach a little bit cold-hearted and reactionary?
Jack at 10:44 am, consider it unimplied and please re-read my point.
“Jack, what is your solution to helping people from falling into self-destructive behaviors, or is your solution to simply let it happen, provide no prevention methods, and then try to fix the self-destructive behaviors as they manifest themselves? Isn’t that laid-back approach a little bit cold-hearted and reactionary”
This is why I think you tend to be rude in these kind of conversations. You have talked to me for what, like months now? We have talked about tons of issues. Where have you ever seen me advocate that we all just shrug our shoulders and let people just fall through the cracks and then hope we can fix them? I have said this before. I think community outreach, non-profits, school programs do a lot better with self-destructive behaviors and reaching out to at-risk populations than criminalizing the behaviors and giving people a criminal record that will hold them back as they try to heal. Do you have any idea what a drug or alcohol related criminal offense does to someone’s job prospects? That’s just one self-destructive behavior that isn’t remotely helped by putting people through the criminal “justice” system.
Catching people while they are young and at-risk, non-judgmental counseling services, etc… those things are things I support for self-destructive behavior.
I read your post Tyler. And I have seen that episode of SVU, I like that show. You are worried that child molesters will take advantage of gay adoptions being allowed to get access to children. They might, true. They might also marry or date women who have children, marry or date women and have children with them, they might become a Scout master, they might become a Catholic priest or a Little League coach. Being worried that a sick person might take advantage of gay adoption doesn’t make sense when you look at the big picture.
Jack, good answer about outreach programs etc… but how does a society develop an outreach program for child molesters? And how does developing an outreach program stop child-molesters from misusing ”liberated” adoption policies? Finally, outreach programs depend, on the most part, people self-identifying. This means outreach programs are, by their very nature, reactive and not very pro-active.
Background checks is a good thing for adoption agencies to do, but as history has shown they are not fail proof. Ideally, some common sense should be used, and the lawmakers should at least notice that they are creator legal huge hole for these creeps to walk through and gain access to children. They need to up the security.
Jack, did you get to the part in the article where it takes about how people can’t change their sexual orientation unless it is to the homosexual orientation – i.e., sexual therapy is banned but reassignment surgery is ok.
I thought the article was quite good and well written. Jack, you should try to finish the article.
“Jack, good answer about outreach programs etc… but how does a society develop an outreach program for child molesters? And how does developing an outreach program stop child-molesters from misusing ”liberated” adoption policies? Finally, outreach programs depend, on the most part, people self-identifying. This means outreach programs are, by their very nature, reactive and not very pro-active.”
Did you honestly think I was talking about decriminalizing child molestation? If you didn’t, were you just trying to upset me by implying I am talking about decriminalizing child molestation? Well, it worked, I am upset now. I have told you, literally dozens of times, that behaviors that damage other non-consenting parties should be criminalized and heavy penalties (as in life in prison) should be dealt out for things like child sexual abuse and rape. You are conflating two different discussion we are having, the worry that people will take advantage of adoption policies and how we as a society can limit self-destructive behaviors.
To be clear: behaviors that harm other non-consenting parties should be illegal and harsh penalties applied to things like child sexual abuse. Behaviors between consenting adults, even if they are possibly harmful, I don’t think that criminalization helps that. Criminalization makes the drug problem in America a lot worse, for example. “Pro-active” is not criminalizing a self-destructive behavior and giving them just one more obstacle (a criminal record) to overcome when they try to get out of the self-destructive behavior. This is why I think we need to work on catching people who are at-risk for certain behaviors young, before they get mired down in addiction or whatever their particular problem is.
“Background checks is a good thing for adoption agencies to do, but as history has shown they are not fail proof. Ideally, some common sense should be used, and the lawmakers should at least notice that they are creator legal huge hole for these creeps to walk through and gain access to children. They need to up the security.”
No. criminal backgrounds checks are not fool-proof by a long shot. You are totally side-stepping my point though. These abuses you are talking about already occur in adoptions. Why are you not concerned about those abuses?
Jack, on a serious note, please forgive I am blind here, but I don’t see how being worried that a sick person might take advantage gay adoption policies is alleviated by looking at the big picture.
Yes, there are a lot of opportunities for sick individuals currently, but why give them another opportunity, and a big one at that.
I’m not reading that article, Tyler, I can’t. I have no respect for the author using that stupid schtick about men turning gay because they were molested. It literally makes me see red.
Jack, I have to remove your post at 10:26 am. Can you please re-write it without the swear words.
Why don’t you just edit out the cussing? Put “crap” instead?
I have not talked about criminalizing gay-marriage, I simply have said it should not be made legal. Gay marriage ties into the whole adoption issue. I have not adovocated for making gay-adoption a criminal behavior, only that it shouldn’t be made legal for the sake of the children.
I am not side-stepping your argument. I recognize that there are problems/abuses taking place with the current adoption policies; however, I think the amount of abuse is going to only increase once gay-marriage and gay-adoption becomes legalized in more places.
Jack, I have already removed the comment.
I forwarded your request that your comment be edited by me. But generally I don’t think that this is done, because it is not, for one reason, practical for the moderators to be doing that. I’ll keep you updated.
I think the rate will probably stay the same.
Btw, you do know what the rate of child abuse is in the foster care system? Much, much higher than in true adoptive families. Taking kids out of the foster care system by adoption is going to lower the rates for sure. That’s one definite plus side to all adoption.
Whatever, leave it deleted, I was mad when I wrote it.
I can’t have this conversation anymore Tyler, I am too worked up and I am just gonna end up with more deleted comments. Have a good day.
Jack, could you please rewrite your post about the article without the cuss words and acronyms. Basically, your post was expressing your disgust with the author’s view point.
FINE Tyler, I’ll copy pasta it and take out the swearing:
That article is a lot of supposition and fear-mongering, looks like to me.
And this ticks me off:
“So for parents who discover that their son has been molested and is now sexually confused”
Ugh, boys who were molested by men are literally no more likely to become gay than boys who were never molested. Gay men don’t have a higher rate of childhood sexual abuse than straight men. I didn’t sit around after being raped and be like “oh wow, totally am not interested in girls anymore, thanks for showing me the light Dad.” I can’t read the rest of the article, I’m sorry. I can’t take people seriously when they say crap like that.
Jack, well, for what it is worth, I appreciated the conversation. Although my view has not changed, I feel that I now better understand your point of view, and that I understand your reasoning a little more. For that I am thankful.
Have a good day Jack.
Tyler: “Which of the five do you disagree with? ”
I know you were asking xgop, but, I disagree with all five (depending on how you define euthanasia.)
Jack, I need to challenge you on a couple of issues.
What evidence do you have that children who are molested by their parents aren’t compelled to question their sexuality more than other children. From the reports I have heard about child abuse this risk does exist, and is one of the many negative lingering effects of child abuse. It is only logical that child abuse is going to affect a person on every level – physical, emotional, intellectual, etc… The fact that a person questions their sexuality doesn’t mean they have less dignity than any other person.
Also what evidence do you have that Gay men (or lesbians) haven’t experienced more abuse than their heterosexual counterparts?
Is it difficult for you to tell that particular topic is really upsetting for me, Tyler? You got that, right? I’ll try to answer later when I feel calm enough.
Ok, Jack – get back to me when you can.
By the way, do you think reparative therapy is always wrong or do you think it can have a place to help troubled and abused teenagers sort through their mixed emotions?
Tyler, I think this is the point where you do the kind thing, and let this go, for Jack’s sake.
Thank you Courtnay.
Tyler, I am going to make this one comment because I think it’s important, and then I would appreciate you letting the conversation drop unless you can handle it with a lot more sensitivity than you have been.
Questioning or having worries about sexual orientation after abuse is common, I never did but some people do and that’s a normal reaction. Abuse can’t turn someone gay though, and just because someone was abused by someone of the same gender doesn’t mean that they were involved in “homosexual behavior” as some lovely people have put it before. So that bull in that article about some eeeebbbiiilll pro-gay therapist turning some molested boy gay is just that, bull. That’s not how it works.
Also, someone who is worried about their sexual orientation after being raped or abused does NOT need “reparative therapy”. They need a therapist who specializes in working with sexual abuse victims to help them work out their feelings, not someone with an agenda to shove down their throat. And honestly, I would question the parenting skills of any parent who, when their son or daughter is molested and is maybe having concerns about their orientation, sends them to someone to try to make sure they don’t become gay instead of getting them real help. “Fixing” the kid like that shouldn’t be the goal, helping them work through their feelings and talk it out should be.
From this article http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psychoanalysis-30/201101/talking-about-sexually-abused-boys-and-the-men-they-become:
“Finally, when the abuser is male (and even sometimes when she is female), many boys – whether straight or gay – develop fears and concerns about sexual orientation. Conventional wisdom says sexual abuse turns boys gay, although there’s no persuasive evidence that premature sexual activity fundamentally changes sexual orientation. Nevertheless, a heterosexual boy is likely to doubt himself, wondering why he was chosen by a man for sex. A homosexual boy may feel rushed into considering himself gay, or may hate his homosexuality because he believes it was caused by his abuse. Whether boys are gay or straight, these manipulative introductions to sexuality can set lifetime patterns of exploitation and self-destructive behavior.”
And this article http://1in6.org/family-and-friends/myths/:
” There are different theories about how sexual orientation develops, but experts in human sexuality do not believe that sexual abuse or premature sexual experiences play a significant role. There is no good evidence that someone can “make” another person be homosexual (or heterosexual). Sexual orientation is a complex issue and there is no single answer or theory that explains why someone identifies himself as homosexual, heterosexual or bi-sexual. ”
You could do me a solid and read that Psychology Today article and spend some time on 1in6 or RAINN website and educate yourself a bit about sexual abuse and assault. Please. We’ve had a ton of conversations like this and it always ends up really upsetting and frustrating. I think that if you educated yourself a bit about it you might understand where I am coming from and we could communicate a bit better, I don’t always do a good job of explaining about this stuff when I get upset.
Jack, I just don’t think your experience or opinion speaks for every abused person that exists, existed, or will exist.
Jack I value your opinions and that is why I responded.
I understand that this topic is sensitive for you, but other people can have opinions on the matter as well. I don’t know why you don’t see the article as being fair minded. Is it fair that the therapist has to be a gay affirming therapist? The article doesn’t suggest that the gay affirming therapist will turn the abused child into being gay, rather the article only suggests that the parents and child should have access to all of the therapeutic options. I would not draw the conclusion from the article that the therapist makes the child gay but rather that the therapist has his/her hands tied by the political climate of the day and that the therapist will not be able to resolve the child’s sexual confusion adequately due to political interference. To me, I think the situation that therapists are in is problematic. The issue of homosexuality is too politically charged right now and there is too much pressure on therapists to be politically correct and pro-homosexual, when therapists should have a more neutral stance on the subject of homosexuality. I don’t like it when politics tries to dictate science. The pro-abortion lobby has done it, and is currently doing it, and so is the pro-homosexual lobby. It is anti-humanitarian in my opinion.
Homosexuality can be caused by many different factors.
The point of the article is not about ensuring that the abused child is sent to a therapist who specializes in reparative therapy, but about sending the child to a sexaul therapist who is free to explore all the possibilities and have as many different legitimate therapies at his/her disposal.
I would be worried about the phrase ”there is no persuasive evidence that premature sexual activity fundamentally changes sexual orientation.” That sounds far from conclusive, and hints that there is some evidence that premature sexual activity fundamentally changes sexual orientation. The writers of this article have simply declared that evidence as not persuasive. But I wonder if politics has influenced what they find persuasive?
I would focus on the part of the paragraph that begins with the word “nevertheless.”
“Nevertheless, a heterosexual boy is likely to doubt himself, wondering why he was chosen by a man for sex. A homosexual boy may feel rushed into considering himself gay, or may hate his homosexuality because he believes it was caused by his abuse. Whether boys are gay or straight, these manipulative introductions to sexuality can set lifetime patterns of exploitation and self-destructive behavior.”
Jack, I need to point something out to you, which may help you to understand what is going on with our conversations. It is you who usually brings up the abuse issue. I was talking about homosexual marriage. I tried to address your concerns and bring up concerns others have. I figure you need to talk about it. As far as I am aware I have never said anything about sexual abuse that could even slightly be construed as offensive. You seem to be most sensitive about the issue of homosexuality as it relates to sexual abuse, which is fine, but I just thought you should know that it is you who usually makes the connection. I have no issue with sexual abuse as an issue, I think it is a real problem and a real issue for many people, causing lifelong hurt. To me, sexual assault and homosexuality are two separate issues. Yet, this fact doesn’t mean I won’t acknowledge that for some people sexual assault can or does cause sexual confusion among its victims. To deny this I think would be the equivalent of putting one’s head in the sand and would be unfair to a great number of sexual assault victims who need help sorting through their feelings.
With the above said, you do an excellent job of making relevant points and explaining sexual abuse and most importantly your tremendous concern for victims of sexual abuse comes shining through. Your compassion for these victims and survivors is very uplifting. Jack, I think highly of you and your opinions. I can see that you would be caring and understanding father.
Jack, I can see that you have progressed quite a lot in your recovery from sexual abuse. I am happy for you.
Yet, I think, you should remember and acknowledge, that Mr. Quinlan’s experiences are just as real as your own. It is not fair or kind to discount his experiences. He is a human being too.
“Jack, I just don’t think your experience or opinion speaks for every abused person that exists, existed, or will exist.”
Never said or tried to imply it did.
I actually do agree with you that homosexuality is too politicized, especially when it comes to psychiatric care. It should be left up to the psychiatric community to decide how to best treat “sexual confusion”… You realize that the APA thinks that “reparative therapy” is crap, right? I really don’t want to talk about this anymore.
I don’t make the connection, between sexual abuse and homosexuality. It’s only in like 90% of right wing leaning articles about homosexuality, seriously. It always makes me mad and I am apparently incapable of ignoring it.
I didn’t say you were offensive, you didn’t really say anything offensive. You tend to be quite insensitive, though, because you don’t let up on a specific issue, you ask like eleventy billion questions about it right after it’s obviously bugging me or I have told you I don’t want to go there anymore. It’s quite frustrating. I am actually sorry for freaking yesterday, I do have PTSD and things trigger me and I don’t act particularly rationally sometimes.
Jack, why do you always make appeals that I should let up? Is it so that you can have the last word! Calling me insensitive, and saying that I don’t know when to let up would be more accurately stated by saying that you did not agree with you. If I agreed with everything that you said I am sure you would not expect me to “let up.”
Jack, you shouldn’t accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being insensitive. That is not an appropriate accusation in a public forum, especially when you are posting your own thoughts on the subject which some might consider insensitive to individuals struggling with sexual identity issues as a result of being a victim childhood sexual assaults.
Fine, Tyler, whatever. You’re right, I’m just trying to get the last word and be right and whatever else you think. Just stop now please.
Tyler, I have argued with literally every single regular poster on this blog, with the exception of JDC and Alexandra I think. I argue a LOT. And I usually, as long as I am asked questions, try to answer them to the best of my ability. I don’t accuse everyone I argue with of being insensitive, or try to just get the last word or whatever you think I am doing. At least I don’t think I do, if someone thinks I do they can chime in if they are still reading this thread. I am sure the problem with you is my fault too, maybe you aren’t doing anything wrong and I can’t see that because of the subject matter. But whether it’s my fault or yours or both of ours, I can’t continue talking about this particular subject. So I am really sorry if I offended you or anything like that but I really want this conversation to be over or about a different topic.
Jack, I am not arguing with you, I see this more as a discussion. Jack, neither one of us are at “fault” or “to blame.” I was not blaming you. I was only defending myself, my right to say what I want to say, and those sexual assault victims who feel differently than you do on the subject matter.
Jack, I am not offended by anything you said, you do not need to apologize. I am just concerned that some people, especially heterosexual sexuall assault victims, may feel pigeon-holed by your narrow interpretation of permitted responses/feelings to their assault. Some of these boys may be truly confused, and it would be unfair to them if they were not provided with a therapist who could reassure them that they can get help (reparative therapy) in developing their heterosexual identity. Heterosexual boys suffer abuse as well, the attacker does not care about the sexual identity of their victim. indeed, the attacker does not care about the victim at all, except as a way to satisfy their own distorted desires. Everything I am saying can be found and is corroborated on the links that you provided.
Tyler, I obviously understand that heterosexual boys can be the victims of sexual abuse. It’s glaringly obvious that I understand that, unless you are subtly calling me gay which isn’t cool. And I reacted too strongly at first to the sexual confusion thing, for stupid reasons, but I went on to say this:
“Questioning or having worries about sexual orientation after abuse is common, I never did but some people do and that’s a normal reaction.”
“Some of these boys may be truly confused, and it would be unfair to them if they were not provided with a therapist who could reassure them that they can get help (reparative therapy) in developing their heterosexual identity. “
That’s what normal sexual abuse therapists DO. That’s not “reparative therapy”, what reparative therapy means is a blatant attempt to change someone from gay to straight. Any therapist worth his or her salt who knows how to work with sexual abuse victims would help them work through their feelings about their sexual orientation during therapy. I don’t even know what we are disagreeing about anymore.
And you do have the right to say whatever you want however you want. You are right, I am just being dumb because I don’t like this conversation very much.
Jack, I was not implying that you are homosexual.
Jack, I think an even finer line needs to be drawn here. If it is ok for heterosexual sexual assault victims to access reparative (for lack of a better word) therapy, why can’t someone else who has not been the victim of sexual assault have access to reparative therapy? Is sexual assault the only reason a person is confused about their sexual identity? Can there be other legitimate reasons for sexual identity confusion, if so, why can’t these people have access to reparative therapy? Finally, if there are individuals who have no obvious cause for their homosexual or confused sexual identity but merely want to change their sexual identity why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so? If we can allow people to freely change their physical bodies through sexual reassignment surgery, why can’t we let people change their *mind* with respect to their sexual identity? To me, the push to ban reparative therapy smacks of political bullying by a pro-homosexual lobby.
As far as I can tell, people want reparative therapy illegal because the APA has deemed it ineffective or whatever. It’s still not “reparative therapy” to help people confused about their orientation. Reparative therapy has the connotation of “repairing” your sexuality from gay to straight. A therapist helping someone with their sexual orientation confusion wouldn’t do that, it’s patient led. At least that’s the way the APA sees it I suppose.
But if a person freely engages in and/or seeks out reparative therapy is this not patient led therapy? Many respected scientists disagree with the APA, even former past Presidents of the APA. There are many articles that have said that APA has been overrun with political ideologues who respect political opinions more than scientifc opinions.
Furthermore, at the present moment, I think we are quibbling about whether it should be called “reparative” or something else. Ultimately, the goal of the therapy is the same – to allow individuals to choose/discover their sexual identity.
The type of therapy you seem to be discussing seems to imply that individuals have no free will and we are pre-determined by our biology – which is a belief and has not been scientifically proven. Science has not proven that our free will does not exist, although certain strains of science acts as if it has.
If pyschology truly wants to be patient led – it can’t ban reparative therapy outright since some individuals may want it by their own free will.
Jack, do you still think reparative therapy is quackery?
I don’t know Tyler, I didn’t even go to high school, how would I know? I generally go by what reliable evidence and experts say.
Jack, it is good to admit when you don’t know something, but don’t let the fact that you didn’t go to high school prevent you from holding and stating an opinion on this subject. You have been able to express, as earlier in this post and on many other threads, your opinions on other subjects quite intelligently, and in a forthright manner.
Due to postmodernists and deconstructionists there are very few reliable experts anymore, and evidence is often called into question. Many people believe the most important issue, is how you frame the story, or event, and not the event itself.
I don’t know Tyler, I really try to only have opinions on subjects that I can research and find pros and cons of and make an educated opinion (as educated as I can be with my limited critical thinking skills and no education at all lol). I haven’t read much about reparative therapy except in the context of sexual abuse therapy, where it’s strongly discouraged (if we are talking about “fixing” someone from gay to straight).
Jack, you have to believe that homosexuality is the default position for some individuals in order for you to buy into the notion that reparative therapy ”fixes” people in the way you have suggested. However, if you think heterosexuality is the default position for everyone perhaps calling “reparative therapy” “restorative therapy” would be more appropriate. I don’t think there is scientific evidence that proves homosexuality is genetic. Banning reparative therapy for political reasons, and not scientific reasons, is not good medicine.
I do believe that some individuals have a “default position” as gay, Tyler. Even John Paul II acknowledge that some people don’t choose it but are homosexual. There’s some evidence pointing at a biological cause, but no one really knows.
Jack, I don’t think you presented John Paul II’s position accurately. JP II emphasized the relative unimportance of defining human beings as “homosexuals” or “heterosexuals.” Those labels aren’t helpful, and do not reflect the true dignity of human beings which is their relationship to the infinite, to the eternal, to God. JP II and the Catechism recognize that there are innate desires, but that does not mean they believe human beings are defined by those desires. The Catholic faith is based on the idea that human beings can overcome the more base desires and become new creatures, children of God, destined for an eternal life. At no time does JPII or the Church say that people should act on those desires, because the Church considers homosexual acts to be disorded, and contrary to human nature. The Church believes human beings can live chaste and in some circumstances celibate lives. In other words the Church believes it is possible for “homosexuals” to live celibate lives just as “heterosexuals” can live celibate lives. In the Catholic faith, human beings are only meant to have sex within marriage, that means everyone not married is supposed to live chaste lives. “Heterosexual” lay men and women, who do not marry, live the same life as “homosexual” lay men and women.
Even if there is a biological cause, it doesn’t mean we/society should embrace or approve of it. To emphasize this point one only has to think if society would ever consider murder to be ok should it be discovered that some individuals are biological predisposed to murder! I don’t think so. Thinking of this extreme case helps a person understand why the Church’s natural law theory is not based on nature, but on human nature, on the deeper relationships that human beings have. Part of human nature is to be in a right relationship with God. It is this deeper and more meaningful relationship that defines what human nature is and isn’t.
Jack, why do you believe that some people are homosexual by default, if the science is not definitive?
And do you think homosexuality is and homosexual relationships are good for the “homosexual” human person?
Tyler, I knew the church position on whether homosexuals should act on any desires. I was just pointing out that even Church authorities admit that homosexuality might have some biological origin, even though they don’t believe that people should be defined by those desires.
“Jack, why do you believe that some people are homosexual by default, if the science is not definitive? ”
It’s anecdotal mostly. My sister was definitely always a lesbian. As long as she can remember she has had no interest in boys and wanted to be with girls. She tried to make herself be into men, went to counseling, etc, and it failed. She couldn’t force herself to be into men no more than I could suddenly stop liking women. I have met a lot of people like that.
“And do you think homosexuality is and homosexual relationships are good for the “homosexual” human person? “
Like straight people it depends on the relationship. My sis is happy with her girlfriend, that’s good enough for me. I know several perfectly happy gay couples and one or two miserable couples, same as heterosexuals.
Jack, you have assumed the goal of human relationships is happiness. Can human relationship truly provide our ultimate happiness? Can any creature satisfy our deepest longings? For us to be truly happy our happiness would have to last forever, but no human relationship can ever last for ever so how can it provide us with ultimate happiness. Perhaps human relationships are meant to show our obedience to God’s will, to serve one another, and to help prepare us in the humility we will be in Heaven.
If relationships are meant to be other focused, how can a homosexual relationships meet this standard. Aren’t homosexuals in a homosexual relationships bound to always make their own sexual satisfaction paramount? If they care about the other ”homosexual” person wouldn’t they want that person to be in a marriage and raising their own biological children?
I don’t think your sister, or anyone can live a Christian life without the assistance of God. I don’t know whether your sister believes in Christ or not, but if one doesn’t believe in Christ first and foremost, I don’t think a person could ever ”change” their sexuality, or accept God’s will for their life. I believe people have to understand their higher purpose in life before they can deal with the temptations they face in life and in the flesh.
Jack, I totally see that it is easier to ignore the teachings of the Church, to remake God, and even to deny God than it is to follow the teachings of His Church.
“Jack, you have assumed the goal of human relationships is happiness. Can human relationship truly provide our ultimate happiness? Can any creature satisfy our deepest longings? For us to be truly happy our happiness would have to last forever, but no human relationship can ever last for ever so how can it provide us with ultimate happiness. Perhaps human relationships are meant to show our obedience to God’s will, to serve one another, and to help prepare us in the humility we will be in Heaven.”
Well, I don’t believe in God, and the times that I waver on that I haven’t seen a reason to serve him and his will. If he wants me to do so he can tell me himself. And our “deepest longings”, I don’t know about you but mine will never be met. That doesn’t mean that I can’t be happy or content someday with someone (not in your church though, because if I remarry I am committing some huge sin). If my sister or anyone else is happy and content in their relationships, then that’s cool with me. If my sis was unhappy I would want her to change her life. I don’t see any other goal worth working for in a relationship besides looking for someone to have as a companion and such.
“If relationships are meant to be other focused, how can a homosexual relationships meet this standard. Aren’t homosexuals in a homosexual relationships bound to always make their own sexual satisfaction paramount? If they care about the other ”homosexual” person wouldn’t they want that person to be in a marriage and raising their own biological children?”
Now this is flat out offensive. I know that you don’t think that gay people feel feelings like you, but believe it or not they genuinely love each other. It’s not more likely to be focused on sex than any heterosexual couple. If they care about each other, they want the other to be happy. Would you rather be with someone you love and are attracted to? If you were just disgusted at the thought of sleeping with your wife, always, and you didn’t have more of a connection than just friends, would you even want to be married to her? I don’t get you at all man.
“I don’t think your sister, or anyone can live a Christian life without the assistance of God. I don’t know whether your sister believes in Christ or not, but if one doesn’t believe in Christ first and foremost, I don’t think a person could ever ”change” their sexuality, or accept God’s will for their life. I believe people have to understand their higher purpose in life before they can deal with the temptations they face in life and in the flesh.”
My sister is a Christian.
“Jack, I totally see that it is easier to ignore the teachings of the Church, to remake God, and even to deny God than it is to follow the teachings of His Church.”
You never listen to a word that me, or Alexandra, or Xalisae, or any other secular/agnostic/atheist tells you about our beliefs, do you? That’s the only possible answer if this is what you come up with for why someone isn’t into your church.
And it’s always the non-believers fault, eh? I get so, so sick of this blame game. If someone doesn’t fit or can’t seem to feel and have faith the way you do, it’s always on them. They didn’t pray hard enough, they haven’t sought God enough, they haven’t done this or they must not be doing that. I get so sick of it.
If he wants me to do so he can tell me himself
Jack, Maybe He is telling you through some of His followers. Are you willing to listen?
And it’s always the non-believers fault, eh? I get so, so sick of this blame game. If someone doesn’t fit or can’t seem to feel and have faith the way you do, it’s always on them. They didn’t pray hard enough, they haven’t sought God enough, they haven’t done this or they must not be doing that. I get so sick of it.
With all due respect, non-believers don’t pray at all and don’t seek God hence their being non-believers. If they did pray and seek God during earlier times of their life and then choose to became non-believers after this, they are the ones who chose to give up their faith (most likely from not getting the result they wanted/expected or realizing on some level that God would expect changes from them if they continued). Believers can hardly be blamed for an atheist’s choice to give up his faith.
Please give God another chance. He doesn’t need you, but He wants you.
“With all due respect, non-believers don’t pray at all and don’t seek God hence their being non-believers.”
It’s not true, I have prayed, I have prayed a lot actually. It’s like talking to myself though. And I get frustrated and tell people it’s not working and they just tell me I am not seeking enough. I could only do that so long before saying “screw it” and giving up. How long are you supposed to pray to thin air and have nothing happen, feel no peace or hope or anything, before you decide it’s just not working for you?
I actually don’t blame believers, it’s your guy’s belief system that I am the failure and not God. Which is cool that you guys believe it, but why in the world would I work even harder to seek something that I am forever gonna fail at?
And I get frustrated and tell people it’s not working
It’s working. You’re reading and commenting on a thread whose headline talks about jeopardizing souls, aren’t you?
If there was no God, there are no souls to worry about.
You are still seeking Him and He is still calling you. We fail God and each other but He never fails. Jesus loves you so much, Jack.
But I can only go by the evidence. From my life it seems like there are only a few options. Either God doesn’t exist, God exists and doesn’t love or care about me, or that God exists and loves me but decided that I needed to be punished for something (not sure what exactly). I don’t see any other options. If your God is really supposed to be our father, right, what father could watch someone he loved be hurt so badly? I don’t get it at all. I understand free will and all that but I couldn’t stand by and watch my kids suffer.
The 4th option, Jack, is that God exists, loves you, and is using this for your eternal good. I would let my children suffer temporarily if it meant saving them from eternal suffering. God is wise and loving. We just don’t always (or usually!) understand.
But the only reason I have to be saved from eternal suffering by temporarily suffering is because God created eternal suffering in the first place!
It just doesn’t make any sense to me.
I don’t have all the answers, Jack, but if we live long enough, we will suffer in one way or another. Jesus chose to come to earth and He suffered too. He was 100% perfect and innocent and did not deserve it. Being human, we were born with original sin. We realize (most of us anyway) that we are failures time and time again so even though we don’t deserve the terrible things that have been done to us, we are guilty of being at times of terrible things ourselves, for what we have done and for what we have failed to do. Our sufferings entwine our lives with that of our Savior’s.
God did not cause those terrible things to happen to you, humans did. Maybe he allowed them knowing that you had enough faith to turn those bad things into good things and would help others (from what I see, you are already doing a lot of that!). I don’t understand His ways but He does love you and wants all of you.
There is a book called Can You Drink the Cup by Henri Nouwen that explains this better than I ever could. It is a very short read and a much easier reading level than Confessions. You can get it for very little through Amazon. Would you think about reading it?
Yeah I can read it. I don’t know though, I really don’t have any hope that this will ever get better.
Suffering wasn’t around from the get go. From my understandings there was some kind of big Fall.
Thanks for being willing to read it. After all the garbage you have been through, you are one tough son of a gun! Hang tough, Jack. You have all kinds of friends hanging with you.
I’m not tough at all lol, I am a total basket case. But thanks. I’ll check it out. I really have no hope though.
Jack God didn’t create Hell. Man and the angels created Hell by refusing to be obediant to Him. It is there refusal to be with Him in eternal happiness that is their hell. Evil is the absence of Good – it is like a hole in a shirt. Evil is what we create when we don’t love things in the proper order, for example when we love material things more than people or when love people more than God. Material things and people are good, but people are more good than material things, and God is the greatest good of all.
Jack, love in the Christian sense is meant to be solely a feeling. That is the Hollywood notion of love. Love in the Christian sense is willing the good of the other. This means we have a notion of what is Good if are going to love someone otherwise we just the blind loving the blind, being blown from relationship to relationship depending on how it makes us feel.
The Church does view valid Christian marriages as indissoluble. However, not all Christians are valid and done with proper consent at the time of the wedding. For these invalid marriages that Church offers a process where the marriage can be declared void/annulled.
Jack if you have no hope – then Jesus message/promise of an eternal Kingdom should bring that Hope to you. You are in the prime position to understand what Jesus is talking about. At this moment you are closer to Jesus than most people.
At this moment you are closer to Jesus than most people.
Agree.
“Jack God didn’t create Hell. Man and the angels created Hell by refusing to be obediant to Him. It is there refusal to be with Him in eternal happiness that is their hell. Evil is the absence of Good – it is like a hole in a shirt. Evil is what we create when we don’t love things in the proper order, for example when we love material things more than people or when love people more than God. Material things and people are good, but people are more good than material things, and God is the greatest good of all.”
Saying God didn’t create hell is just… ridiculous. You can say that we and Lucifer and all created, but you can’t get around the fact that God is all-knowing and timeless in your religious beliefs, so there is simply no way to say he didn’t know what humans and angels would do and he allowed it to happen AND he decided instead of just snuffing them out of existence or a finite punishment for finite crimes… he decided an infinite punishment was just. I don’t see how an infinite punishment for finite crimes is just.
“Jack, love in the Christian sense is meant to be solely a feeling. That is the Hollywood notion of love. Love in the Christian sense is willing the good of the other. This means we have a notion of what is Good if are going to love someone otherwise we just the blind loving the blind, being blown from relationship to relationship depending on how it makes us feel.”
No, I do get it. Paladin has explained to me what the Christian sense of love is, Carla has talked to me about it as well. And I can’t think of anyone I really wish ill will on, I don’t even wish anything bad to happen to my parents. And I think I have a fairly good grasp on what is good.
” The Church does view valid Christian marriages as indissoluble. However, not all Christians are valid and done with proper consent at the time of the wedding. For these invalid marriages that Church offers a process where the marriage can be declared void/annulled. ”
I have no idea whether my marriage would be considered invalid or not according to the Church. I do know we were married five years and have two kids, and every single other denomination would have considered us married in the eyes of God. And that logically goes to say that at the ripe old age of 24 I am just done, I should either be alone forever or commit a huge sin. That’s simply ridiculous to me, that it would be sinful for someone to find love because they made a stupid mistake and married the wrong person at 19.
“Jack if you have no hope – then Jesus message/promise of an eternal Kingdom should bring that Hope to you. You are in the prime position to understand what Jesus is talking about. At this moment you are closer to Jesus than most people.”
I have no idea how I am close to Jesus at all. And the thought of heaven doesn’t give me hope sadly enough. I know it seems so easy for you, but it’s seriously feels completely out of reach for me.
Jack, human beings chose their eternal life, in part. In Catholic religion it is not Grace or Free Will…. It is Grace and Free Will. God does what is Good and Just. Since there are some people who don’t want to live with Jesus in the eternal life God grants them their wishes. God does not force people to go against their own wills and to live with Him in eternity. In Catholic religion we acknowledge James 2:16 “Faith without works is dead” while not denying the truth of Romans 3:20 and Romans 5:21. These two ideas (faith and works) are complimentary and not contradictory. Though God grants us Faith, we can refuse that gift of faith. It is amazing, in the most hidden place of the human heart everyone knows and believes God loves them, but very few have the courage to articulate that knowledge – because we all feel so unworthy of such a great gift. But it is there – a place of tremendous joy for us to embrace – but we have to choose to embrace it. Jack, you asked if an infinite punishment is a just punishment for finite wrongs but a more positive formulation of that question is: is an infinite reward for finite good faith and works just? Do we ever merit Heaven? The reasons for God’s infinite mercy is beyond our comprehension, but nonetheless we know that he will be just and merciful based on the testimony of his Son, Jesus Christ. What better witness can we have to base our faith on than the one person who knows what Heaven is like?
It is the Devil who makes Heaven feel out of reach. That is his plan – to constantly say that we are not worthy of God’s love and mercy. The Devil is a sneaky being.
Jack, you were young when you are married. Here are some possible reasons that a marriage may not be valid: the age when the couple got married – especially if someone was under the age of consent; or if either person was under duress to marry (perhaps due to a pregnancy, or overbearing in-law), or if either person had drug or alcohol addiction that impaired their reason at the time of marriage; etc… I think you get the idea. There are a number of issues that could cause the marriage to be considered void.
Jesus is close to all those who suffer. Jesus was not a warrior God, but a suffering servant God. Jesus washed the feet of the apostles. Jack you have been made humble, so that He could take you up. I am glad to hear you are only 24. You are a mature 24 year-old Jack. You have plenty of time to go back to school, to do many things with your life. One day you will be very happy that you married at the appropriate age. You don’t see it now, because society’s idea of when it is best to marry has changed, but I think society has this wrong. Youthful parents have more energy, generally speaking, to keep up with their kids.
Hell is not being with God in eternity.
Jack, what do little children do when they don’t get what they want – they clench their jaws, or gnash their teeth. These little children are in a kind of personal Hell when they don’t get what they want. It will be the same for those who don’t choose go to Heaven by accepting God’s infinite Mercy, the salvation provided by Jesus - they will see and understand what they didn’t get. They will gnash their teeth – and perhaps stomp their feet.
“Jack, you were young when you are married. Here are some possible reasons that a marriage may not be valid are – the age when the couple got married – especially if someone was under the age of consent; or if either person was under duress to marry (perhaps due to a pregnancy, or overbearing in-law), or if either person had drug or alcohol addiction that impaired their reason at the time of marriage; etc… I think you get the idea. There are number of issues that could allow the marriage to be considered void.”
There wasn’t any of that. I thought I was in love, so did she, we got married. No circumstances that could excuse me. I made my choices and I will live with them. I don’t think I will remain single forever no matter what kind of sin it is though, I do think that I could go that long without sex honestly lol. I actually have a date tonight, who knows maybe she will actually like me!
“Jesus is close to all those suffer. Jesus was not a warrior God, but a suffering servant God. Jesus washed the feet of the apostles. Jesus you have been made humble, so that He could take you up. I am glad to hear you are only 24. You are a mature 24 year-old Jack. You have plenty of time to go back to school, to do many things with your life. One day you will be very happy that you married at the appropriate age. You don’t see it now, because society’s idea of when it is best to marry has changed, but I think society has this wrong. Youthful parents have more energy, generally speaking, to keep up with their kids.”
Lol how old did you think I was? I am pretty much stuck where I am, I don’t have many options but I am cool with that. I am a good dad and that’s all I care about being really. And how in the world can you say that it’s good I married at the “appropriate age”? My marriage was really, objectively awful and now I’m divorced. I don’t regret my kids at all though, so there is that.
“Jack, you asked if an infinite punishment a just punishment for finite wrongs but a more positive formulation of that question is: is an infinite reward for finite good faith and works just? Do we ever merit Heaven? The reasons for God’s infinite mercy is beyond our comprehension, but nonetheless we know that he will be just and merciful based on the testimony of his Son, Jesus Christ. What better witness can we have to base our faith on than the one person who knows what Heaven is like?”
Nope, infinite rewards for finite good works doesn’t seem “just” to me either. That’s why the prospect of an eternal life based on anything we do here doesn’t make sense. We get like eighty or ninety years, if we screw up to much we suffer forever (or even if we are good people who don’t believe, then we still get to suffer forever). If we are good enough or at least believe (even if we are a terrible person) we get to be all safe and happy forever? It’s nonsensical to me.
Jack, I realize you didn’t mean to imply this, but just in case, please remember this: don’t base your next relationship, especially your next marriage, on your desire to have sex.
Jack, thank God for your children. That is why the light still shines in you. Do you think you deserved them? And yet He still allowed you to be a parent.
That was meant tongue in cheek Tyler, I am sure I could be celibate for life if I had to.
I don’t think I “deserved” my children. I don’t think kids are something you “deserve”. They sometimes happen despite your best efforts, and they deserve the best that you can give them.
Jack, the Catholic religion doesn’t say that if you are terrible person but believe you get to go to Heaven. In Heaven there will be people had faith and followed God’s will, and did not break the Commandments. Jesus fulfilled the law, he did not abolish it. The Commandments still apply, if you break them and don’t repent you don’t want to go to Heaven and therefore, you don’t go there.
People of non-Catholic faith can go to Heaven.
Jack, I realize that you are a wise 24 year-old and would not to base your next relationship on sex, but for those others who aren’t familiar with your wit, I think you should remember that you are posting on a public forum and they may think you actually mean what you say, and some may want to follow that lead.
“, I think you should remember that you are posting on a public forum and they may think you actually mean what you say, and some may want to follow that lead. ”
Lol how would they “follow that lead”?
How old did you think I was? I’m just curious, people online usually think I am older than I am.
Jack: I don’t think I “deserved” my children. I don’t think kids are something you “deserve”. They sometimes happen despite your best efforts, and they deserve the best that you can give them.
Jack, that is how God thinks about us. The best he can give us is eternal life with Him.
lol.
That’s all I can say about this. I’m sorry, Tyler, but I really can’t believe you’re a mod now, and I don’t think this place is better as a consequence.
BAN ME. PLEASE.
Seriously. The “Oh, you poor thing. You’re probably just impaired and didn’t know any better.” attitude to dissolving a toxic marriage is really insulting. This kind of thing is why religious people tend to be viewed as self-righteous jerks.
xalisae: “Seriously. The “Oh, you poor thing. You’re probably just impaired and didn’t know any better.” attitude to dissolving a toxic marriage is really insulting. This kind of thing is why religious people tend to be viewed as self-righteous jerks.”
What are you referring to?
Lol.
The assertion that non-believers have never prayed or sought God is totally false, btw. Here’s the reality: you cannot pray or wish or old-college-try your way into believing that there is a god. You just can’t. You can either be honest with yourself or not. Or I guess as a third option, you can go all Catholic “dark night of the soul” and behave as though you believe when all you feel is crushing emptiness from the void. Which is not an undignified solution and I do not mock it – but generally speaking you would need to have already believed to see any value in going that route.
For goodness sake.
“Seriously. The “Oh, you poor thing. You’re probably just impaired and didn’t know any better.” attitude to dissolving a toxic marriage is really insulting. This kind of thing is why religious people tend to be viewed as self-righteous jerks”
To be fair, I haven’t stated any of my reasons for leaving my wife on this blog, you and the handful of other people I had on my FB know about it but Tyler doesn’t. It’s still an insulting assumption though. Though I was more offended by the claim that I have no values and that the only reason I don’t follow the Church is because it’s “easier not to”.
What assumption have I made Jack? I think you need to be specific. Jack I have never said that you had no values, nor have I made any assertiions about why you don’t follow the Church teachings.
Seriously, Jack. There’s no other way I can describe Tyler than “bigoted”, and I think the fact he was appointed as a mod reflects poorly on the entire site.
Tyler: “Jack, I totally see that it is easier to ignore the teachings of the Church, to remake God, and even to deny God than it is to follow the teachings of His Church.”
Tyler: “Jack, you have chosen the atheist side, you are not ignorant of the Christian worldview, you’ve simply chosen not to accept it.”
Tyler: “Your ambivalent attitude towards which home a child resides in shamelessly disregards tradition, history, and natural law – which is to say, that your worldview is atheistic. An atheistic worldview which is going to be imposed on the child, just as much as any Christian worldview has been. Simply put, you prefer the lack of values of the atheistic worldview/belief system. This is a hard road to live, and I am not sure it will bring happiness.”
That among other things. Tyler, I like you. I genuinely do. I used to not but you have grown on me. I do get tired of you saying insulting things and then acting like they aren’t insulting.
Jack, remember there are some cynical and bitter people in this life and they would like nothing more than company. You have, God willing, a long life ahead of you, please consult those who will help you to make wise decisions.
I feel like you are talking down to me a bit Tyler. How old are you btw? I like having these discussions with you but I would like it if you talked to me a bit more like an equal than like a child (that’s just an impression I tend to get from you).
Jack, my first comment was directed at atheism in general.
My second statement is a statement of fact. I don’t think you would disagree with it.
My third statement is also a statement of fact.
Jack, please feel free to tell me about your values/beliefs, but if you have values/beliefs you can’t really call yourself an atheist. A true atheist shouldn’t have any values. A true atheist has only interests – fleeting interests.
What is insulting about any of those comments? Why are atheists so sensitive about their lack of beliefs? I am truly perplexed by this behavior.
Omg Tyler you make me want to cry and laugh at the same time, and I never cry!
“Jack, my first comment was directed atheists in general.”
Ok, I’ll give you that. It’s still untrue though. for a lot of people. You would know this if you would actually listen to me, Xalisae, Alexandra, Mary, or even JDC (though he doesn’t tend to talk about the religious stuff) when we talk about why we aren’t Christian.
“My second statement is a statement of fact. I don’t think you would disagree with it.”
I do disagree with it. I am not an atheist, for one. I have told you I am agnostic/secularist many, many times. Not having a belief in the Christian God does not automatically equal atheist. I haven’t simply chosen not to follow Christianity. I have many reasons, none of them set in stone and impossible to change. It’s unfair to paint my thoughts on the issue as “you just choose to reject these truths!!!”
“Jack, please feel free to tell me about your values/beliefs, but if you have values/beliefs you can’t really call yourself an atheist. A true atheist shouldn’t have any values. A true atheist has only interests – fleeting interests.”
*headdeskfacepalmheaddesk*
This is why Xalisae called you a bigot. Atheists have values/beliefs like anyone else, so do agnostics, secularists, deists, and all other types of non-Christians. It’s just insane that you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge this just because those values do not come from a book or a belief in a supreme being.
“What is insulting about any of those comments? Why are atheists so sensitive about their lack of beliefs? I am truly perplexed by this behavior.”
Because we HAVE beliefs. Not believing in God does not mean that we believe in nothing. Not everyone who is an atheist is a Nihilist for pity’s sake.
Honestly Tyler, can you tell me that if someone called your deeply held beliefs and values “fleeting interests” that you wouldn’t be offended?
Jack I will let you sort through this for yourself. Good luck. If you want to ask me serious questions let me know.
Tyler that’s just flat out maddening.
No seriously Tyler that’s so annoying. You ask me sixty seven trillion questions, I try to answer them to the best of my ability even when they were actually seriously bothering me, and then you refuse to explain yourself or give my point of view any credence at all? Grah.
Jack, there are too many folk in the peanut gallery.
Ok, Tyler. I suppose I should accuse you now of wanting out of the convo because you aren’t being agreed with? Sigh.
I think it’s because he’s too scared of losing his own faith to even listen for a second to anything remotely tinged with dissent.
Tyler, look I’m sorry if you feel judged or attacked or whatever. But come on man, try to put yourself in one of our shoes for a minute and see how offensive your own words could come across.
Jack,
Geez, I’m stuck in a house without power for a week, and you get in another existential / methaphysical discussion? ;)
Now I know what the Cowardly Lion was talking about!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/9335869/little_boy_leads_thousands_into_soccer_chant/?source=playlist&passiveNav=1
Hans, I hope you and your loved ones are ok! My mom just got power back yesterday – thank goodness. I had set her up with a kerosene heater last week, which really saved the day, but it’s getting COLD out and I’m glad she’ll have heat now. I hope you get power back soon if you haven’t already. Stay safe.
Alexandra,
Thanks so much! No power for 239 hours, but who’s… Yeah, right. I like it cool, but my hands were beginning to get cold! It was colder every night, and it went down to 25 the night we finally got power back. The house temp was ebbing down to the low forties.
Here’s one more try at one of my favorite movie lines:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-oRCt2J44uhutt/the_wizard_of_oz_1939_saved_by_the_good_witch/
I already sent you an email about it, but to let you know again I am really glad you are safe Hans!
I totally thought that everyone besides me and Tyler had basically quit reading this thread like days ago until people commented lol.
Nah, Jack, but apparently we are all just part of the peanut gallery. ;)
How dare you state your opinion at the topic at hand Alexandra! ;)