The Darkness Gathers

CourtLawJustice

In his dissent in United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court decision invalidating the federal definition of marriage as natural marriage, Justice Scalia rightly identified as particularly outrageous the Court’s assertion that the purpose of the definition was a “‘bare … desire to harm’ couples in same-sex marriages.”

The assertion is ignorant and bigoted to the point of being delusional. It’s not as if the justices hadn’t seen arguments to the contrary. How did they come to say such a thing?

From one perspective the Court was simply doing what it always does when it establishes as a matter of constitutional law sexual autonomy rights that are favored by governing elites but lack any basis in the Constitution. It has the justice with the least professional shame (William O. Douglas) or the least intelligence (Harry Blackmun, Anthony Kennedy) put together some words that purportedly support the right. The rest of the majority then attach their names to what he writes, and it becomes a leading case from which principles and language can be extracted for use in further development of legal principle.

Still, four additional justices signed on to the opinion as it stands, and no doubt commented on it in advance, and they had good reason to take what it said very seriously. Also, they had signed on to similar assertions in previous majority opinions composed by Justice Kennedy. So we have to assume that they are prepared to commit themselves to the assertion and want it treated as a prominent example of the kind of reasoning by which our fundamental law should be determined.

Kennedy did not, of course, invent the claim. He has enough intelligence, and undoubtedly received enough advice, to choose a theme that would fly in the circles he wants to impress. And from what counts as serious discussion by serious people in our country it is clear that most well-placed and influential Americans have come to believe that opposition to same-sex marriage can only be a matter of ignorance and bigotry. They are convinced that a social institution that involves sexual differentiation can have no legitimate function or right to exist, and the point is so obvious that no rightly constituted mind could possibly believe otherwise.

But why on earth would anyone believe such a thing?

To all appearances, the view is based on a radically individualistic view of man and a technological view of reason and society. On that understanding, society is a collection of equal individuals with no qualities, not even sex, other than those they freely choose for themselves. Those individuals have various desires and the equal right to have those desires fulfilled, and the point of morality and politics is to create an order of things that secures their fulfillment as much and as equally as possible. The desire for respect and acceptance is one of the most basic human goals, so the right to equal fulfillment includes the right to equal respect for the self-understanding and way of life of every individual, whatever that may be.

On such a view no human relationship should be recognized that is not simply a matter of choice equally open to everyone. Individuals are equal units, and they define for themselves what they are and what their relationships are, so it is not clear how unchosen or predefined relationships could come about. And if such relationships did exist, and they were recognized, then individuals and their desires would not get equal respect, because people who wanted such relationships would be at an advantage over those who did not.

Such views are considered an obvious demand of reason and justice. To reject equal fulfillment as the highest standard and technology as the model for putting it into effect can, it is thought, only be a matter of greed, bullying, sadism, or irrationality. After all, the alternative to giving people what they want equally is preferring some people and their desires to others, the alternatives to technology are passivity on the one hand and magical thinking on the other, and the alternative to equal respect is suppression of some people and what they want for the sake of a scheme that other people want to impose on them. How can any of that be justified?

Since it is all so obvious, or so it is thought, resistance is not merely misguided or wrong but an expression of gross irrationality that can only be motivated by gratuitous hatred. It is evidently for some such reason that the Windsor majority treats those who disagree with it, in the words of Justice Scalia, as hostes humani generis: enemies of the human race.

That may be the most disturbing feature of a profoundly disturbing decision. Modern thought tends toward an ideal of transformation through radical simplification and controlled but ruthless use of force. That tendency has been remarkably effective in dealing with the physical world. In the social world, however, it has led to extremes of tyranny and violence, so much so that the largest cause of violent death in the very violent twentieth century—much larger than war or murders perpetrated by radical nationalist regimes—was the murder by progressives of people they didn’t consider progressive enough. If someone rejects the obvious dictates of reason, justice, progress, and history for no conceivable legitimate motive, the thought seems to have been, he’s resigned from the human race and should no longer be treated as human. His interests don’t count, so whatever he gets is good enough for him.

The radically ideological type of progressivism that has led to such conclusions is, I believe, something new in mainstream American public life. In the past there have been different forms of progressivism that seemed deeply opposed to each other, and America has consistently chosen the better part. The Anglo-American enlightenment was more moderate than the Continental one, liberalism milder and far more humane than communism, and so on. As the logic of “progress,” which is really the application of technological thought to human life, works itself out such distinctions seem to be vanishing.

To some extent the result has been a decline in the extremes of left wing violence, which no longer make sense when the principles of the left have been adopted by all public authorities and the more extreme methods of advancing them have been tried and found wanting. To some extent, though, the result has been the disappearance, even among those counted as moderate, of any sense of limitation or of the possible legitimacy of other considerations and perspectives. Progressive modernity aims to abolish the transcendent and create a perfectly rational and self-contained system, a project that is the essence of totalitarianism. As it proceeds and destroys alternative authorities it comes to pervade the whole of thought and becomes harder and harder to criticize by any standard outside itself—that is, on any grounds other than insufficient purity. The intellectual result can be seen in the Windsor case. The practical results are likely to include open-ended suppression of dissidence, which increasingly seems irrational, antisocial, and groundless. The most obvious consolation, but that a bleak one, is that the results are also likely to include increasing stupidity leading to bigger and bigger errors that will make the system increasingly nonfunctional and perhaps destroy it within a few decades. We shall see.

James Kalb

By

James Kalb is a lawyer, independent scholar, and Catholic convert who lives in Brooklyn, New York. He is the author of The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command (ISI Books, 2008), and, most recently, Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It (Angelico Press, 2013).

  • Uuncle Max

    We shall see. Yes we shall. God help us, God have mercy on us.

    Which side are you on?

    Be not afraid and pray fervently and frequently.

  • Ralphster

    James Kalb continues to make some good points, but seems to believe the American experiment is a noble, just, natural law-based venture, we simply have to bring the proper moral grounding and dispositions to it in so as to order its functioning properly.
    This is simply not the case, and there really should not be any major shocks or surprises with what has unfolded during the past 50 years. The radically individualistic view of man that is critiqued here was built into the Lockean American experiment from the beginning and is simply yielding its innate fruits now. The Constitution can have anything added, modified, or removed from it. Anything. Is that a cornerstone of authentic governance as taught by our faith?
    Yes, progressive modernity does aim to abolish the transcedent. But it started with Locke, Rousseau, and Jefferson, not McGovern, Clinton, and Obama. Even our ‘conservative’ Justice Scalia has made clear he has no real Constitutionally grounded objections to states statutorially enacting legal abortion and same-sex marriage, he simply believes federal courts should not be involved in the matter. How noble. Free us from federal judicial tyranny so the state legislatures and the people can act like crazed, deranged spectators at a coliseum event.
    As long as we continue to bring an implicit hermeneutic of rupture to such discussions, we will continue to falter in our full understanding of them and in identifying what the true solution is. Unfortunately, the Holy See, since the 1960s, has not helped in this matter.

    • Alecto

      If you seek an all-powerful mighty force for good in government, you will be eternally disappointed. I’m with Madison on this point, “If men were angels, we would have no need of government.” Until that time, it is absolutely essential to the virtuous development of individuals that we have limited government. We no longer have that thanks to the collusion of the corrupt in rending the Constitution and with it, the operations of a federalist society.

      I’m constantly shocked at the perversion of Scalia’s opinions. He’s in no way condoning abortion, which he has repeatedly stated is antithetical to any moral society. He is making a case for federalism, not for individual moral evils.

      • Adam Baum

        Moreover, Scalia is the type of judge that avoids the sweeping statements favored by people like Kennedy. His opinions address the issue at hand, and only that issue.

      • Ralphster

        Correct me if I’m wrong, Alecto, but Justice Scalia favors our system, which does not intrinsically mandate full observance of the natural law by all levels of government. Even if he personally opposes enactment of legalized abortion, he has no material objection to a system of government that allows the states to enact legal forms of abortion or same-sex marriage.
        Assuming I’m correct in the above, then his views are deplorable, period. He’s simply a conservative variant of the “I’m personally opposed but…” mentality.

        • Alecto

          Our government? As conceived and as written, or as perverted by a succession of ignoramuses labelled the electorate?

          • Ralphster

            The fact that it can be navigated by such ignoramuses proves that it’s as conceived and written.

            • Michael Paterson-Seymour

              In his 1996 interview with Catholic News Service, Scalia J explained, “Government is as religiously and morally neutral as a “tooth paste” or a “crowbar.” It may act out “what is ultimately a motivation of morality, but it is a motivation of morality at the level of the individual citizen which then expresses itself in the majority vote that controls what the government does.”

              This is the same point that Jacques Maritain was making, when he said, “we do not call upon the people to decide because we are aware of our ignorance of what is the good, but because we know this truth, and this good, that the people have a right to self-government.”

    • Bucky Inky

      James Kalb continues to make some good points, but seems to believe the
      American experiment is a noble, just, natural law-based venture, we
      simply have to bring the proper moral grounding and dispositions to it
      in so as to order its functioning properly.

      Of course Mr. Kalb can answer for himself, but to me it appears as though you need to read more Kalb. I’ve read his thoughts as proposals of what is the best that can be done with an imperfect situation that is the “American experiment.”

  • Steven Jonathan

    The descent into madness is almost complete- this age of technology is the mortar that holds all the bricks of the failed enlightenment experiment together. The wall between us and reality is ever growing, most all of us believe that we can order our own lives, not as they correspond to the integral human person, but as our appetites dictate what we are entitled to.

  • poetcomic1

    This decision is the natural (irony intended) end of the cult of ‘freedom’ and equality.

    • Bill S

      “This decision is the natural (irony intended) end of the cult of ‘freedom’ and equality.”

      The “cult” of freedom and equality? You make it appear to be a bad thing. What would you propose as an alternative?

      • poetcomic1

        Bill S.
        Hi! You define ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ as you understand them and maybe I can answer your question.

        • Bill S

          Freedom is my ability to do whatever I want to do so long as it doesn’t adversely impact another. Equality is being treated the same as others, in this case, gays the same as straight.

          • poetcomic1

            Do what you want and treat everyone ‘the same’. These are indeed noble ideals on which to build a great civilization.

            • Bill S

              What would you propose instead? That we not be free to do what we want and we not treat people with equality? Many great things have come from people who did what they wanted and treated people as equals. What do you want?

              • cestusdei

                We are free to do the good. Destroying marriage is not in the common good.

                • Bill S

                  Nobody is destroying marriage. Who came up with the idea that gay marriage affects the status of traditional marriage. If traditional marriage is in trouble, it has nothing to do with gay marriage. There are other totally unrelated reasons for it.

                  • cestusdei

                    Yes, you are. If you destroy its definition you destroy it. If it means anything it means nothing. It hurts all of us especially the children.

                    • dch

                      Name the specific material harms, the specific harmed individuals, and the specific gay marriage that caused the harm?
                      (Your side failed to do so in any of the court cases when asked)
                      Otherwise, its all in your head and is no concern to others.
                      Gay people have been getting married for close to a decade in MA and no material harm to others as ever been identified or stated.

                    • cestusdei

                      By destroying marriages definition you destroy marriage which harms society and children. Even if we should prove this to you it won’t stop you. Homosexuals want this because they think it will convince themselves that their behavior is okay, they can’t stand anyone who thinks otherwise. It is utterly selfish.

                    • Bill S

                      ” they think it will convince themselves that their behavior is okay, they can’t stand anyone who thinks otherwise. It is utterly selfish.”

                      They don’t need to convince themselves or anyone else. Their behavior is okay to society. It is people of your ilk who think it is not.

                    • Facile1

                      If what you say is ‘truthful’, why the need to post in an explicitly Catholic blog?

                    • Bill S

                      Because you people support one another’s false notions of what this world is all about and need to be infiltrated and cut off at the knees. It’s like monitoring the communications of terrorist cells. It’s preemptive.

                    • John200

                      Bill,

                      At last you admit your homo”sex”ual motive for a parade of 50+ idiotic comments. Thank you for that. Soon you will tell us all about your “son” but let that wait until you can tell the truth.

                      If you have truly figured yourself out, then you can now go and make some progress toward the truth.

                      Best wishes on your journey.

                      And congratulations on graduating from “laughable troll” status.

                    • Facile1

                      A little bit late (by about 3 millenniums.)

                    • Facile1

                      You’re several millenniums late.

                    • Tony

                      That is an absurd requirement, as you well know. Any radical alteration in a culture works its harm generally and over a long period of time. No-fault divorce didn’t hurt any PARTICULAR person, immediately — it just hurt millions of married people, over the years. You are recommending that we pretend that a man has the capacity to marry a man — detaching marriage from biology, making it into “a romantic relationship with some vague promise of endurance.” You have not the slightest idea what this radical alteration will do to the institutions of marriage and the family, though the burden of proof is always on the innovator, especially when he’s advocating something never before seen in human history. But you don’t give a damn about it — you haven’t even begun to reconsider all the rotten things we have ALREADY done to these institutions.

                    • dc

                      That is the legal standard in civil courts. Name any of these “millions of married people” and the specific harm that came to them as a result of gay adults being legally married. They are your plaintiffs. Offense to your world view is of no consequence to anyone else.

                    • Facile1

                      Your argument would hold water except that Catholics pay for public schools.

                    • Crisiseditor

                      Gay activists cause harm by punishing and persecuting those who have a contrary opinion. We see this everywhere, including in Massachusetts. You have repeatedly spread lies about this issue on this site and I don’t see how your willful ignorance, if not outright deceit, contributes anything to our discussion. For those who want to learn of the repercussions of same-sex marriage can read this essay published in the Weekly Standard several years ago: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp#

                    • Me

                      “Gay activists cause harm by punishing and persecuting those who have a contrary opinion.”
                      How are they “punishing and persecuting” anyone? Gays have been “punished and persecuted” for years. Now most of us just want to see them accepted, treated with respect, and given the same freedoms the rest of us have. We don’t want to judge them. We don’t want to see them hurt. We don’t want to hurt anyone. None of this has anything to do with going after anyone who holds a contrary opinion. Pope Francis can be considered a “gay activist” in as far as he indicated that he doesn’t judge gays and that he feels they should be integrated into society and not marginalized. To frame support for any group in terms of hostility to those who disagree is grossly self-centered and Scalia-esque.

                    • Bill S

                      Well said, Me. You sound like me. Oh, your are Me.

                    • Me

                      True, dch, and in fact states that allow gay marriage usually have lower divorce rates than those that don’t:
                      http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/States-That-Allow-Same-Sex-Marriage-Have-Lower-Divorce-Rates-213335351.html

                      so the “SSM destroys traditional marriage claim” is clearly a crock.

                    • Facile1

                      Most divorces happen after 10 years of marriage. Look at the data again after 10 years.

              • Facile1

                Name one person “who did what they wanted and treated people as equals”.

                • Bill S

                  “and to respect whatever differences we may have with our lovers, our friends, our families, our neighbors, etc.”

                  There you go. You’ve said it. Now, JUST DO IT.

                  • Facile1

                    I’m not the one in an explicitly Catholic blog site attacking Catholic beliefs.

          • Tony

            Every sexual sin helps to undermine the common good, and that includes fornication, adultery, pornography, prostitution, and sodomy. If you are “for” sodomy and against fornication — if you are willing to pretend that two men who pretend to marry will wait till the “nuptials” before they ingest one another’s excrementa, then you’re not in your right mind. And you have the wrong definition of freedom, to boot. Freedom is the unimpeded capacity to realize the human good — which involves the full flourishing of what distinguishes us from the beasts; knowing what is good (the contemplative ideal) and acting upon it (the practical ideal). Read Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Spenser, Milton, Pope, Swift, Johnson, basically any English author of any note before the day before yesterday.

          • Facile1

            “Freedom is my ability to do whatever I want to do so long as it doesn’t adversely impact another.”

            Freedom CANNOT come from the STATE because FREE WILL comes from GOD. You are already ‘free’ to do what ever you want. The question is: Are you willing to face the consequences (some from the State, some from the Church, some from family, some from neighbors, some from your sexual partners, some from viruses, etc.)?

            “Equality is being treated the same as others, in this case, gays the same as straight.”
            God made us in His image. BUT He did not make us ‘alike’ (as in the mathematical context of ‘equal’). How do you propose to erase all the differences that exists among the children of God? And who do you suggest should judge whether the treatment of whom by whom is “equal”? YOU? The STATE? Where once the State criminalized sodomy, are you advocating now that the State criminalizes ‘religion’?

            Perhaps, you should revisit your definitions. After all, language is a human invention. The TRUTH (ie GOD) is NOT.

            • Bill S

              “And who do you suggest should judge whether the treatment of whom by whom is “equal”? YOU? The STATE?”

              I accept the rulings of the Supreme and lower courts. As an American, you should as well.

              • Adam__Baum

                Sure, because they never screw up. Plessy v. Ferguson, Buck v. Bell, Korematsu v. the United States…..

                • Bill S

                  Umpires and referees screw up all the time. Yet participants abide by their decisions. It’s the same thing with courts. They might not always be right but that does not diminish their authority. As an American, you should give more weight to decisions by the courts than to your religion.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    We don’t live in a kakistocracy.

              • Facile1

                I believe in the “separation of church and state” and it does not belong to the purview of the STATE to legislate morality.

                • Bill S

                  That is why the Defense of Marriage Act was bad legislation. It did just that. By the Supreme Court striking it down, it is correcting the government’s mistake of legislating morality.

                  • Facile1

                    Two ‘wrongs’ do not make a ‘right’.

              • Facile1

                I accept the rulings of the Supreme and lower courts ONLY under duress. But there are some beliefs I am willing to give my life for (alive and dead).

          • Adam__Baum

            “Equality is being treated the same as others,”

            In other words, as a fungible commodity, rather than a unique individual.

            • Bill S

              How did Catholics develop such an aversion to the concept of equality? Every time I use the word, I get strange responses.

              • Adam__Baum

                Because your version of “equality” commoditizes people, robs them of the uniqueness. All great tyrannies cloak their dehumanizing mechanics in equality-got it citizen comrade?

                • Bill S

                  How do I become a commodity if a gay couple are treated the same as my wife and me?

                  • Facile1

                    Well, for one, your marriage is no longer a special gift from God, is it? The children (even your exceptional son) is not deserving of any special privilege — like the right to know you and your wife as father and mother.

                    • Bill S

                      You are not providing any legitimate reasons not to treat gays as our equals. You’re using your concept of God to perpetuate grave injustices.

              • Facile1

                GOD wanted us to value our unique gifts.

                • Bill S

                  So, for that reason, we are better than gays? Marriage is a unique gift from God and is only for heterosexuals? And the government should make sure it remains that way by passing laws like DOMA?

                  • Facile1

                    Marriage is a unique gift from GOD and is only meant for couples who will take responsibility for any children that may issue from the consummation of a heterosexual act. Homosexual acts cannot issue children by definition. Men and women with homosexual tendencies are allowed to marry if they want children by way of heterosexual copulation. So how are ‘gays’ being disenfranchised? Why should their private sexual preferences be made public by the STATE when there can be NO innocent humans involved in their homosexual acts?

                    I am not for criminalizing sin. BUT neither am I for legitimizing sin. I am for the separation of Church and State (at least until the coming of the Kingdom of GOD). Until then, sin should be kept a private matter more suitable for the confessional.

      • http://jimkalb.com/ James Kalb

        For a discussion of the problems caused by trying to make freedom and equality ultimate standards, and the Catholic alternative, see http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/equality-and-catholicism.

        • Bill S

          That’s a pretty good article. I think that freedom and equality can be applied to the gay marriage issue, though. It is best to just keep it simple. There is no acceptable reason to withhold the right to marry from same sex couples. Religious objections are not justified because this country does not have a state religion. To each his own.

          • cestusdei

            There are reasons. For example protecting marriage itself or keeping homosexual activists in schools from teaching our children that gay is okay.

            • Bill S

              Protecting traditional marriage has nothing to do with deny gays the right to marry. Children should know that there is nothing wrong with being gay, anyway. It is only the prejudices induced by their parents and religious instructors that would give them the idea that there is something wrong in being gay.

              • cestusdei

                There is no right to something that doesn’t exist. Marriage is only possible between a man and a woman, period. That is reality not prejudice. But you prove the author of the articles point. Parents have every right to teach their children the truth about homosexuality and that it is wrong.

                • Bill S

                  And homosexuals have every right to tell them that their parents and religion are wrong.

                  • cestusdei

                    NO, they don’t. Would you like me to go to public schools and teach them my religion and philosophy? Probably not. Homosexuals have no problems bullying, yes bullying, those who disagree with them.

                    • Bill S

                      Boy! You really hate homosexuals. That shows there is something lacking in your ability to peacefully coexist with people different from you.

                    • slainte

                      She disagrees with your position; she has not attacked your personhood.

                    • Facile1

                      Boy! You really hate children.

                    • Bill S

                      Teaching tolerance of those different than themselves, especially if their parents are homophobic and bigoted, is a very good thing for children and society.

                    • John200

                      Homohobia is not bigotry. Heterophobia, vaginaphobia, and normal personphobia are bigotry,.

                      I hope you enjoyed that, and I know you did.

                    • Me

                      But cestusdei, don’t you see the bullying here in this very forum of people who hold anything other than an extremely conservative view that is not necessarily Catholic? Bill S. is being held to a different standard by the moderator than many others. If you’ve followed some of the other threads, some posters have been far more offensive than he has, yet the moderators had nothing at all to say to them.

                    • Adam Baum

                      There are no truancy laws compelling you to be here.

                    • Facile1

                      In case you missed it. “Crisis Magazine” bills itself as “A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity.”

                    • John200

                      You are being held to normal standards of truth, which homo”sex”uals cannot meet. That is why you are doing so badly here. We see homo”sex”ual trolls running out the same idiotic arguments every week (and some weeks, it’s every day).

                      Your interlocutors have seen everything you, Bill, and dch have offered, many, many times. You are not educating dummies to your way of thinking. We are ‘way, ‘way, let me say it again, ‘way ahead of you.

                      In charity, I’ll give you a clue about every pro-homo”sex”ual argument that has shown up on this thread: Thomas Aquinas destroyed them 750 years ago. He died in 1274 AD.

                      Do you see?

                    • Bill S

                      I don’t understand why you type homo”sex”ual instead of just homosexual. Is there a reason for putting “sex” in quotation marks. Is it some sort of weird sexual hangup?

                    • John200

                      Dear Bill,

                      Thank you for the note. Three main points:
                      1. First, I put quotes on homo”sex”ual activity because Man #1 and Man #2 cannot have sex; they can masturbate in many disordered forms. That is, they practice at best mutual
                      masturbation; at worst, exploitation of the other person. Sometimes both, which gives you a twofer that points you toward hell.

                      This might help: if one masturbated with a book, I would call it booko”sex”ual activity (obviously, not mutual). Man and book are not sexually incompatible, although man can benefit greatly by making a good book his friend.

                      2. Homo”sex”uality defines the homo”sex”ual as unable to determine what sex is. They don’t even know who they
                      are sexually compatible with. This indicates serious disorder in a grave matter. You might prefer to call it intrinsically disordered (the street term is “screwed up”), as does the Catholic Church.

                      God would spare His children the aftereffects attached to homo”sex”ual activity, but some choose it. The problems result from the actions. Knowledge of sin will do you good. Sin is always self-destructive behavior. ‘Tis a grave misfortune.

                      The upshot of points 1 and 2 is simply the truth that homo”sex”uality is an intrinsic disorder in a grave matter. Homo”sex”ual acts oppose the objective truth.

                      3. This reason will hurt if you are a homo”sex”ual, but let us make a short list of those damaged by homo”sex”ual conduct:
                      – the homo”sex”ual (his mental, physical, and moral health). It is a matter of destroying the anus and (list of body parts goes here) of the person you “love.” Think of diapers, diseases
                      (list of diseases goes here), poop and lack of control over the poop, wide distribution of the poop, (it gets all over everything, what a mess)… . That’s what you are wishing on your “beloved” partner. And on yourself. That’s where both of you are headed. I’ll add a little reminder that pathology occurs at each end of the alimentary canal; sometimes, at both ends in the same homo”sex”ual. A twofer; you ruined him at both ends! Not very loving, that;
                      – the partner he is destroying (mentally, physically, and morally; not very loving, that). I hope your doctors know how to
                      perform restorative surgery on the alimentary canal, and furthermore, that the “doctors” where you are heading are somehow denied possession of your soul;
                      – others (parents, siblings, friends, …) who want the best for the
                      homo”sex”ual. If they are human, these worthies are appalled by the homo”sex”ual and his activities;
                      – still others (potential wives, children never born,…) who might have benefited if the homo”sex”ual had done better. We do not normally see the harm done to this class of people, but it is considerable;
                      – society at large. We all pay huge, unnecessary costs caused by homo”sex”ual activity. The amount is in the multi-billions of dollars every year.

                      Quick summary: Perverted fake “sex” is not loving. Rather, it is hateful to destroy yourself (self-hatred) and your homo”sex”ual “lover” (hatred of your victim); to cause heartache for any- and everyone who wants to see you live a good life (eg, family members); to deprive others of marriage or even the right to be born; and to fob the costs off onto other people.

                      Consenting to homo”sex”ual activity is insane and/or demented and/or hateful (pick your adjective, take all three if you like), and not one damned bit loving.

                      I think you see the sophistry that underlies arguments for homo”sex”uality; your comments convince me that you deserve credit for that much. Homo”sex”ual behavior is on the wrong side of sex, and it is a matter of choice. Your behavior in response to stimulation IS within your control, if you are a human being. Lack of self-control defines the animal, eh?

                      By now, you know you are with interlocutors who have heard and refuted all your homo”sex”ual arguments many times (I start from Thomas Aquinas, d. 1225-1274 AD). Homo”sex”ual activity is hard to defend and impossible to justify. Indeed, the homo”sex”ual scores a lot of own-goals in his defense of homo”sex”uality.

                      You know who leads you into temptation. You know who can deliver you from evil. You know He will deliver you if you make an effort to go to the truth, but not otherwise. I gave you some truth, oh no! here comes some more (relax, it’s just a few more lines).

                      You were not destined to end up badly; you chose it and can un-choose it. Many pretend that:
                      1) they cannot change their sinful nature, and therefore,
                      2) they must continue to practice their sin(s).

                      You see the self-deceptive logic. When people get that bit of self-deception out of the way, they start to do better. I am an example of points 1 and 2.

                      I am almost 100% certain that you will find the truth from where you are starting, whenever you want. I hope you find this helpful, at least a little bit. Best wishes, you have made a good start and it will not be a long journey for you. Besides, you don’t really want to go through life with the Marquis de Sade as philosophical muse and Moloch as your de facto god.

                      PS – I use male pronouns, but Woman #1 and Woman #2 run afoul of the same set of facts. It won’t get any easier if we move to lesbianism.

                    • Bill S

                      John,

                      Your attitude toward gays is disgusting. They are fortunate that people like you are completely impotent in terms of having any say on matters that affect them. I don’t want to exchange any more thoughts on this subject with you.

                    • John200

                      My attitude toward homo”sex”ual activities is correct. You will come around, maybe tomorrow, maybe later.

                      It is too late for error to win with you.

                    • Bill S

                      ” In the US, they number more than 300 million+ (out of a total population of 310 m).”

                      Those might be all the heterosexuals. But you need to deduct the one who are not homophobic. What is your number then?

                    • John200

                      The number is not changed by sarcasm.

                      We are not homophobic; no fear of homo”sex”uals at all, other than fear that they will go after children. We owe it to the children to defend them from predators. That could start another branch of this discussion, but I will take the shortcut of assuming you know the reasons.

                      In case you don’t know, the dominant feeling toward homo”sex”uals is pity. They miss out on much of what makes life good, in exchange for masturbation, avoidance of sex, and all the other effects given in my earlier comment.

                      The number is as it was, the dial did not move.

                    • Bill S

                      “We are not homophobic; no fear of homo”sex”uals at all, other than fear that they will go after children.”

                      Then you are homophobic. It is a self-contradicting sentence. Gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because of your fear that they will go after children? Bizarre.

                    • John200

                      No, you are going after a tendentious interpretation of pretty plain language. You are indeed a fountain of self-contradicting logic, but I have been leaving that out for a reason that you can guessed — pity for you.

                      Go back, look again, you will see the correct interpretation when you sincerely look for it. Here is a parallel: I have no fear of strange dogs, no fear at all, other than fear that they will go after children. Guided by prudence I will energetically oppose their approach to a child. But I am not afraid of a dog.

                      Jesus faced your kind of opposition. How do I know that?? Try,
                      “Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.”
                      – John 8:43

                      Do you see?

                    • Bill S

                      “but I have been leaving that out for a reason that you can guessed — pity for you.”

                      Trust me. If anyone is in need of pity, it is you. Your analogy of not trusting the dogs near the children further confirms your homophobia. You need not fear for your children as gay marriage becomes commonplace. I’m glad that this is an uphill battle for people like you and not for gays. They are coming down the homestretch. And there is nothing that their small-minded antagonists can do about it.

                    • John200

                      Dear Bill,
                      I knew you would try not to see and that you would produce a tendentious interpretation of my words. As you know, I don’t trust you or your thinking, no, not one bit, not at all. I don’t even trust that you are a Catholic. But let that go.

                      On to substance. I am conducting an easy “battle” for truth since the opposition is so comprehensively wrong. You are not coming down the stretch; you are scoring own-goals.

                      Remember two days ago when you said you didn’t want to discuss this with me? Go back, look it up, it’s still there. Since then, you have heard quite a lot of truth, told some whoppers, and, one hopes, improved. I give you credit for sticking around and I do not mind your resistance.

                      Perhaps you are better able to “… bear to hear my word.”
                      – John 8:43

                      (you can see that I really do like that little bit of Scripture).

                  • Bob

                    Only if that child has totally explored, studied, and informed their conscience on their parents religion. There are many people with homosexual tendencies that have found great peace in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

                  • Facile1

                    No human being has the right to tell anyone’s child that heterosexual or homosexual acts is “right” for children at their age group.

                • dch

                  # 1. Civil marriage between same sex couples already exists in 13 states, and that number is only going to go up.
                  # 2. You can tell your kids whatever you want.

                  # 2 is not going to change #1.

                  • cestusdei

                    1. It doesn’t exist. It is pretend.
                    2. Unfortunately already there is pressure to tell kids what YOU want despite parental objections.

                    You are not going to change number 1.

                  • Facile1

                    #1 and #2 will not change the TRUTH (ie GOD.)

                • Me

                  It’s not “reality” that marriage “is only possible between a man and a woman.” It is merely an opinion. One has to have a truly narrow and sex-centric view of marriage not to understand that two men or two women can have very happy marriages. I know a few same-sex couples, and they appear to have better marriages than some of my friends who are in traditional marriages.

                  • Facile1

                    What planet are you from?

                • Adam Baum

                  But the state says it exists, so it must, right?

                  Geez, I thought the “Emperor’s New Clothes” was a child’s story, not an injunction against mass delusion and state edict.

              • Tony

                Bill is not arguing in good faith. No healthy and sane father of a son wants anything other for his boy than that he will grow up with a normal, matter-of-fact acceptance of his masculinity, comfortable around other boys and men, attractive to girls and attracted to them in turn. It is absolutely natural for him to want this, and he’d be insane not to want it. It is his right, even his duty, to act in such a way as to help the boy achieve just that. No one has the right to do anything that will thwart him in this endeavor — to lay a snare in the boy’s path. A man CANNOT marry a man — the requisite organs are lacking. And if you are going to “justify” homosexual pseudogamy by holding forth the example of fornication and out-of-wedlock births, or deliberately childless marriages that are parasitical upon the full reality of marriage, it ain’t going to fly here. All of these things are crimes against marriage, the good of children, and the common good.

                • Bill S

                  Wow Tony. You are a piece of work. You are totally narrow-minded and extremely homophobic. If you were to have a son who turned out to be gay, you would absolutely ruin his life. I can’t believe that anyone living in 21st century America could be so entirely unenlightened.

                  • Bob

                    Good……sarcasm and name calling. When backed in to a corner without a rational response or answer, I guess this is the only way to respond.

                    • Bill S

                      Not that it is any of your business, but I happen to be the father of a homosexual whom I couldn’t love more. Tony is a jamoke. He completely lacks the ability to know and understand homosexuals.
                      .

                    • slainte

                      Do you mean that you are the father of a young man that experiences same sex attraction?
                      Actions do not define one’s personhood.

                    • Bill S

                      It’s not an issue. He’s got an excellent life.

                    • slainte

                      Your comments suggest that your son’s entire identity is subsumed by his sexual preference. You refer to him as a “homosexual”. He is more than his actions; his preferences should not define him in your eyes.

                      We are not attacking his personhood; our Catholic faith calls us to chastity absent marriage.
                      Marriage is a sacramental, unbreakable Covenant by and among one man, one woman, and Our Lord Jesus Christ…three uniting in Love, through one flesh, to bring forth new immortal life. It is not just a partnership contract.
                      Redefining the word “marriage” is an assault on our faith and the traditions of this country. I understand that you love your son greatly and that you are fighting for him. We are not your enemy, nor your son’s enemy.
                      Pax.

                    • Bob

                      Agree, slainte, on your comments on identity. I commented similarly below, I do like your explanation better.

                    • Bill S

                      “Redefining the word “marriage” is an assault on our faith and the traditions of this country.”

                      Sorry you feel that way, but less and less Americans are coming to see it that way. Your faith will survive and can’t really be a factor in determining whether gays have a right to marry. They are not attacking anyone’s religious beliefs. They are simply securing fair and equitable treatment for themselves. The Catholic Church is not going to win this battle and will cry “persecution” when it learns that discrimination against people based on sexual orientation is illegal in this country.

                    • Facile1

                      If you are so sure “the Catholic Church is not going to win this battle”, what are you doing posting in an explicitly Catholic blog?

                    • John200

                      Fear of the truth.

                    • Facile1

                      If your son has an excellent life, why do you want to change the law for the rest of us?

                    • Bill S

                      I want to live in a country where my son will not be discriminated against by religious extremists. That’s also why I wouldn’t live in a country like Pakistan or Iran.

                    • slainte

                      You define a person who disagrees with your position on same sex marriage as a “religious extremist”?

                    • Bill S

                      I define those who want the laws of the land to be based on religious laws, such as the Muslims who want to enforce the Koran, to be religious extremists. People oppose homosexuality mostly on religious grounds. Very few atheists oppose it. Even marginally religious people sympathize with the gay community and are also more likely to be pro-choice. Anti-gay and pro-life movements are primarily made up of religious extremists. People with a “God’s will, God’s plan, God first, etc. attitude.

                    • slainte

                      Bill, Those Catholics who may oppose same sex marriage do so primarily because of our Covenantal understanding of the purpose of marriage, and sex within marriage, as oriented toward the procreation of children. Children are the fullest and most complete manifestation of conjugal love, and in their birthing and raising, represent the parents’ complete and self-less sacrifice of themselves in favor of their babies. Marriage, and sex within marriage, is not a recreational, purposeless activity and all Catholic couples are called to be open to children through their marital acts of love. I am sure that you and your wife experienced this ultimate gift of selfless love when you had your son.
                      We are called to raise our young, who are made in the Image of Almighty God, in a deeply caring and responsible environment taking care to model for the children, by example, what it means to be a man or a woman. Girls learn about men through their father’s example; boys learn about women through their mother’s example. And each child learns about their own sex by recourse to their same gender parent. Our identity and roles as men and women are very different, but no less valuable. Our children learn to understand themselves, and how to socialize in a dual gender world, through observation and imitation of mom and dad.
                      To intentionally deny a child the important foundational basis of a mom and a dad is an act of cruelty and indifference to the well being of a child which will likely impede his or her prospective flourishing.
                      As a Roman Catholic, I do not bear animus against those who experience same sex attraction. But for the reason that marriage is a collaborative effort between a man and a woman for the express purpose of allowing children to be born of the union and to flourish in the world, traditional marriage is the vehicle proven through time that advances the child’s best interests.
                      I decline to be defined as an extremist for being a practicing Catholic.

                    • Bill S

                      “our Covenantal understanding of the purpose of marriage, and sex within marriage, as oriented toward the procreation of children.”

                      Let’s call that the Catholic model. Like a weather prediction model, if it produces good results such as accurate predictions, then it is useful. Otherwise, it is not. The Catholic model works well and should never be abandoned. But are there other weather prediction models that also work and can be used? Are there other effective ways to live other than by the Catholic model? I say there are. You seem to be saying that there are not.

                    • slainte

                      I am very wary of experimenting on children. Every child has a right to a mother and father and to know, and connect with, his ancestral background. Sometimes that causes you as a parent to interact with nutty aunts, uncles, and cousins that make you scratch your head and wonder how you could be related to them..but you do it because you know that it is important to your child.
                      Have you ever noticed how inquisitive children are regarding who their grandparents are? where they came from? what they did? Has your son ever asked you who he looks like? Whether he resembles your side of the family or your wife’s?
                      Children have a natural, insatiable curiosity to know their roots and to connect with extended family. Have you observed how an adopted child is often curious about his or her birth family, even when that child is part of a loving adoptive family.
                      Have you noticed how a child becomes fearful when mommy leaves to go to the store? or when a child experiences a first sleep over and suddenly mommy or daddy isn’t there when they wake up? How they are sometimes afraid to be alone?
                      Traditional family is radically important to children as it allows them to feel protected, safe, secure, and a cherished member of a larger group. Through time and eternity, the traditional family has been mommy, daddy and lots of relations.
                      Please don’t advocate for experimenting on children; no child deserves to grow to adulthood as the result of an experiment with no ability to know all the people in his family line.

                    • Bill S

                      You are making a point that can be applied to two different entities. If you are making the point that the Catholic Church should stress to its members how preferable it is to raise children in a traditional family, that is one thing. If you are trying to say that this should be a concern of the government, that is a different story. The government is not in the business of assuring that every child is raised in a traditional family. The government should not be denying the rights of gays to marry and raise children. The Church can try to do it with those who look to it for guidance, but Americans should not be subjected to such restrictions.

                    • slainte

                      Marriage precedes the existence of all governments.
                      Government merely recognizes the pre-existing state of marriage. It is not the creator of marriage. Thus, the government’s exists subject to and is subordinated by marriage. What it did not create, it has no jurisdiction to alter.
                      According to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of government in our federal republic is limited to safeguarding its citizenry so that we may enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
                      Government has found it beneficial over time to support the pre-existing institution of marriage, and the family, as this practice has contributed to the formation of a just society.
                      A traditional marriage of one man and one woman has the longest proven track record that unequivocally demonstrates that a child flourishes in this environment.
                      Any other arrangement is, of necessity, an experiment which serves neither the best interests of the child, nor society.
                      Experiments that go wrong may cause irreparable injury to a child’s physical, mental and spiritual well being with attendant life long consequences.
                      A child’s best interest should not be subordinated to a societal experiment which may substantially and adversely damage him.
                      A child has rights just as an adopting couple does.
                      Bill…would you have allowed anyone to experiment with your young son to determine whether altenative, untested arrangements in child rearing would work?
                      I suspect not as you have proven yourself to be a devoted and protective father.

                    • Bill S

                      “According to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of government in our federal republic is limited to safeguarding its citizenry so that we may enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

                      Therefore, the government should not be dictating who can or cannot marry.

                    • slainte

                      What it did not create, it should not attempt to redefine or alter.
                      I wish you and your son much happiness and the peace and grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
                      Pax et Bonum Bill.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Very few atheists oppose it.

                      So?

                    • Bill S

                      Causes that are advocated primarily on religious grounds are doomed in this country. Unless religious people somehow gain enough support to take over the government, their causes are dead in the water. I hope we never see the Christian Right gain enough power to control the three branches of government. It could happen. But, in answer to your question: opposition to gay marriage is almost exclusively religiously motivated. That just about makes it wrong.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Oppositon to a lot of things is almost exclusively motivated. It might be a useful exercise to imagine how many people don’t dispose of you, simply on exclusively religious grounds.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Funny, the danger now is to be discriminated against by irreligious extremists. There’s plenty of threatening letters coming from government and NGO lawyers trying to eradicate any public sign of religion, none compelling anybody to practice.

                    • Bill S

                      “the danger now is to be discriminated against by irreligious extremists.”

                      Both sides realize that it is all or nothing. Neither is willing to compromise.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Sorry, but that is “Bravo Sierra”.

                    • Bill S

                      You don’t see the “all or nothing” stand being taken by both sides? I am talking about pro-life v. pro-choice and gay marriage. There is no compromise.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      There are questions that have binary answers. Either you are pregant or you are not.
                      Why limit yourself to compromise on abortion or SSM. Maybe I should be allowed a little latitude in disposing of trolls.
                      The insistence on a murky continuum is the repose of the intellectually weak and the morally bankrupt.

                    • Bill S

                      I agree. If that’s the way it has to be, so be it.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Then why are you lamenting the absence of compromise, where it cannot exist?

                    • John200

                      If anything you say is true, he has a krappy life. And it is going to get worse. And you may expect it to be shorter than it would have been if he had not chosen homo”sex”uality, and then been enabled by you.

                      Some father!

                      Relax, Bill! I don’t really think you are the father of a homo”sex”ual. I think you are the homo”sex”ual, because this trick is so common among homo”sex”uals who troll websites where they might learn the truth.

                      You can’t handle the truth.

                    • Bill S

                      “I don’t really think you are the father of a homo”sex”ual. I think you are the homo”sex”ual”.

                      If I were, I would not be ashamed to tell you. I do however think that you are very, very homophobic and that it is going to catch up with you. You are the one who can’t handle the truth.

                    • John200

                      After 50+ comments, you are still unable to handle the truth, and
                      mucho ashamed of yourself (at last a normal response from you! That’s a good sign), and committed to dancing around the truth.

                      Too bad. I am under orders to tell you the truth, but only twice. I made more than two comments because I thought I saw promise in you. I leave the next step in your progress to the next guy.

                      Just so you know, I am handling the truth nicely, thank you very much. I wish you could do the same, but it will take a while.

                    • Bill S

                      Thanks for giving it your best shot.

                    • John200

                      No charge, man. Best to you in your journey.

                    • Paul McGuire

                      I’ll get back to you on the shorter life part in 50 years if I’m still around. You know what makes life horrible for gay men? when family members insist in the name of religion that they can change them or make them straight (like the whole ex-gay movement through exodus international that has now admitted that they didn’t change anyone) or when a gay man is told that the only way to be faithful to God is to live a life of celibacy.

                      On the other hand, the truth is that I am going to be married to my boyfriend soon and we bring each other joy and happiness through the love we share. We have a fantastic non-denominational christian pastor who is going to do the ceremony and is excited to present this relationship before God for a blessing. The Catholic Church is not the only christian church out there and there are plenty of churches in each state ready to bless the unions of same-sex couples.

                      Of course people will say in response that these churches can’t possibly be christian if they condone such pretend marriages. Which one of us can’t handle the truth?

                    • John200

                      “Which one of us can’t handle the truth?”

                      The old saying is, if you have to ask, you’ll never know. And you won’t know; that is, you won’t be able to handle the truth until you accept that your conduct is horrible for:
                      – you,
                      – the man you are destroying,
                      – those who wish the best for you,
                      – the woman you might have brought close to God,
                      – the children you might have brought into being, and
                      – society in general.

                      If you are so far gone that you think you can do a homo”sex”ual “marriage,” then righting yourself is a long way off.

                      Going through life backwards is doing you a lot of damage. It will just get worse and worse, without cease, until you right yourself.

                      As for your first two paragraphs, they are ridiculous and you know it.

                    • Bob

                      Good! I’m glad you love him, as a good father should. I’m a father of sons, I understand your love for him. Im sure he’s a wonderful person, a wonderful son. But by not condoning his homosexual tendency, does not mean you love him any less. Maybe he’s looking for your guidance on this. Id challenge you to look in to Courage, a Catholic group for people with homosexual tedancies..And homosexuality or heterosexuality are not someone’s “personhood.” Being sexually attracted to someone else is not who we are. We are neither “homosexual” or “heterosexual.” We are human beings, male and female. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are tendencies, not what define us.

                    • Bill S

                      “But by not condoning his homosexual tendency, does not mean you love him any less.”

                      Of course I condone it. I’m not ashamed of him being gay. If he marries someday that would be fine with me. Better than growing old alone. Thank you for your recommendation but we are not looking for a Catholic solution since it would be severely inadequate.

                    • Bob

                      But you are spending much time Bill on a Catholic website, and you are condemning something (a “Catholic solution”) as “severely inadequate” without any knowledge or understanding of what a “Catholic solution” is.

                    • Bill S

                      I’m actually not looking for any solution. It is what it is. I’m more or less looking for legitimate reasons for why anyone should really have a problem with gay marriage. Haven’t found any yet.

                    • Bob

                      It is against the natural law, but as an atheist you are not going to agree with that. I find it interesting that gay marriage proponents are all for man marrying man, but vehemently against redefining marriage to include other groups such as polygamists, bestiality supporters, incest fans. You can argue that there are moral and health/medical reasons to be opposed to those marriages, but the same arguments can be used against gay marriage. Gay marriage proponents actually undercut their own stance and justifications by denying a father from marrying his daughter, or a woman from marrying her Arabian Stallion. These groups have their sexual tendencies just like the gay couples have same sex sexual tendancies, why discriminate against them? As you say Bill, “it is what it is.”A true gay marriage proponent is all in on redefinition, and should welcome these groups to the marriage club.

                    • Bill S

                      These are tired, overused arguments against gay marriage. There is no “natural law” that neatly matches Catholic teachings. Gravity is a law of nature. As far as other kinds of marriages, let their proponents fight for them. Gays don’t have to. The simple fact is that when a gay couple makes love, it does not disrupt the time space continuum. It does not upset the so called creator of the universe. It does not corrupt your children, etc. It just happens and you and yours never know anything has happened. I’m getting tired of discussing this.

                    • Me

                      Thomas Aquinas defended SLAVERY as “natural law”:-O And here is an instruction signed by Pope Pius IX and written in 1866:
                      “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.
                      There is no doubt in my mind that the Catholic understanding of homosexuality as contrary to “natural law” will change just as understandings of slavery have (thankfully!) changed.

                    • Bob

                      Yawn! You are incorrect, read the link below. Please do your research first before trying to twist the truth:

                      http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83832

                    • Bob

                      You also need to revisit the definition of what natural law is. Please…..”me”……you need to educate yourself better before putting up a post like this. I’m embarrassed for you for putting up such rookie ball. The Catholic people that read and post on Crisis Magazine are extremely knowledgeable and educated in the faith. Where it obviously appears from your posts that you really know nothing about Catholicism.

                      So please…….think before putting up distorted lies like this.

                    • Bob

                      How do you know that sodomy “does not upset the so called creator of the universe?” Explain. How do you know?

                      There are many diseases attributed to sodomy (look up “gay bowel syndrome”, amongst many), possibly it does disrupt the time space continuum?

                      You are an atheist. How can you lay claim to understanding the actions or reactions of a creator you do not know exists?

                    • Bill S

                      “How can you lay claim to understanding the actions or reactions of a creator you do not know exists?”

                      The better question is where do you come up with your understanding of the creator? From Bronze Age folklore passed down by people who think they must believe it in order to go to heaven? How pathetic.

                    • Bob

                      No…….through The teachings of Jesus Christ found in His Church, the Catholic Church.

                      But of course Bill, that’s not the answer you’re looking for! To challenge you to really be opened minded and try and learn what the Truth of Christ is and how it is found in the Church ain’t gonna happen, is it?! So I’m not even going to try! You’re just here to attack what you refuse to learn about.

                    • Bill S

                      Well. You can’t say you didn’t try. Thanks for caring enough to do so.

                    • Bob

                      Bill…..why do you not even want to try to learn what the Church teaches? I mean……you certainly spend a lot of time on a Catholic website. Pick one topic, such as homosexuality, and really look in depth to why the Church teaches what it teaches. And I suggest looking at legitimate Catholic sources and websites. I find that by cutting down my own TV watching by 1-2 hours a week I dedicate to learning something new and in depth on Catholicism. Maybe try that for the next 2-3 months, see where it takes you.

                    • Bill S

                      Bob,

                      I was Catholic for 60 years. I know what the church teaches.

                      Its teaching on homosexuality is wrong. But it has no way of correcting itself without dire consequences in regard to its infallibility. So it just keeps pushing in the same direction, putting it at odds with society and fulfilling its own prophesy of persecution when the rest of the world won’t put up with its homophobic teachings.

                    • Bob

                      Bill….Christ was at odds with society, look what happened to Him! The Church can not change its position on homosexual acts, it must stand tall on the true teachings of Christ. It must do this out of the two greatest commandments given to us: love of God and love of neighbor. As you well know, Tradition and Scripture has always spoken clearly on this subject (Paul’s letters: “Man lying with man is an abomination.”)

                      The Church and the Body of Christ is being persecuted over the homosexual issue. Devout Catholics are prepared for such red and white martyrdom, that is why we are the Church Militant here on earth. We love our brothers and sisters with homosexual tendencies. We can not judge what is truly in their heart, like all of us, that is between God and them. But actions can be judged. I examine my own thoughts and actions every day. Often, I fall. But the beautiful part of getting back up and following the Church’s teachings on faith and morals I do find myself closer to God.

                      The teaching is clear: love all men and women as Christ has loved us. We are commanded to do this. But it is not love to allow any of us or our fellow pilgrims on this orb to be justified in their sins whether it is fornication, adultery, stealing, lieing, gossip, murder, and yes……homosexual acts.

                    • Bill S

                      “The Church and the Body of Christ is being persecuted over the homosexual issue.”

                      I can accept most of what you said. But, at it worst, being forced to play nice with gays and not discriminate against them hardly qualifies as persecution. The First Amendment is off the table. This government says that you will treat gays fairly and your religion is not an acceptable excuse. No one says you have to marry them or even accept them, but you can’t mistreat them.

                    • Bob

                      If the Catholic Church believes that marriage is divinely ordained to be between one man and one woman, how are gays being mistreated? Of the Church says that you can’t redefine something that is impossible to redefine, how is the Church being discriminatory or not accepting? If a man wanted to become a nun, and the Church said no, would that be discrimination? Or the woman priest issue? There are deep theological reasons why a woman can’t become a priest, but will the Church in the future be attacked and accused of discrimination and hatred for this?

                      This is the impass we have, Bill. Marriage can not be redefined, as per Christ’s teachings in the Church. The Church is not a horizontal, social democratic organization that sets its sails to the current wants and whims of society. It is a vertical looking body that looks to divine laws and that our real home is not here on earth, but the joy of eternity elsewhere.

                    • Bill S

                      Yes. I understand that. The Church is not a democracy and I only want to be governed by a democracy. I refuse to bow to a theocracy. This world does not need those or even monarchies. I don’t need a Pope telling me how I and mine should live.

                    • Bob

                      OK. Godspeed, Bill.

                      I’ve enjoyed our banter…….take care!

                    • Adam Baum

                      If you had any knowledge of politics or history, you’d never say you want to be governed by a democracy. Democracies are inherently arbitrary and unstable.

                    • Bill S

                      “Democracies are inherently arbitrary and unstable.”

                      You know of a form of government that is better than a democracy?

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Yes. Democratic Constitutional Republic.

                    • Facile1

                      Then YOU should stop.

                    • Adam Baum

                      “They have ears and hear not, and eyes and see not”

                      If your mind is closed, you will find no evidence that’s persuasive or probative.

                    • Gilbert Jacobi

                      Here are some of my “problems”. To cite only the most concrete and immediate examples: when I am increasingly thrust against my will into social situations where I must obsequiously take homosexual couples as the equals of my wife and I, with all that entails, including being leveled in the eyes of my sons to someone whose role and function can be performed by anyone; the threat to my hope that I may rear a pair of God-fearing boys, boys who as men will place great importance on elevating their relationships with the women they meet onto a path conducive to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, when they have had to endure the spectacle of traditional Christian attitudes toward matrimony being so ferociously attacked by the proponents of this sorcery. This is the truth obscured by the lies of those like “ch”, who cynically ask us to “name one” married couple or child who has been harmed by no-fault divorce and now, the perversion of marriage itself.

                    • Bill S

                      You are aware that there is a slight possibility that you could have a child with a genetic predisposition to homosexuality? If it is such an abomination to you, you could be very disappointed when there is no need to be. It is more likely that your children will be “normal” to use a word that you would probably use. But they still should be taught to respect gays. Maybe you should as well.

                    • Gilbert Jacobi

                      They will be taught the basic Christian compassion that we extend to all sufferers of illness and disorder, and the understanding, stopping short of condoning, that all sinners must extend to one another.

                    • Bill S

                      “They will be taught the basic Christian compassion that we extend to all sufferers of illness and disorder”

                      Gays are not sufferers of illness and disorder. Your attitude toward them is a disorder.

                    • Gilbert Jacobi

                      You have reversed reality in order to assuage the pain of your situation with your son. It is a common enough response, but one I’m afraid you’ll have to try on someone else.

                    • Adam Baum

                      we are not looking for a Catholic solution

                      Well then why are you here?

                    • Bill S

                      To be difficult, I guess. I don’t know. I clicked on a link that led me here and I can’t seem to get the last word.

                    • Facile1

                      GOD has the last word. DEATH is the great equalizer.

                    • Adam Baum

                      Interesting admission.

                    • Facile1

                      If you are not looking for a “Catholic solution”, what are you doing in this explicitly Catholic blog?

                    • Bill S

                      My wife is very religious. She knows that I am not as religious as me and that I blog about religion. The problem I have is that I can’t really argue about religion with her because she would think I am damned. She even warns me that God is going to get me or, when anything bad happens to me, that God is punishing me. Talking to people like you lets me work things out without doing it aloud with my wife. I hope you understand. I’m not arguing with you to be a troll. It is actually therapeutic.

                    • Bill S

                      Correction. Not as religious as HER.

                    • Me

                      Ted Haggard appeared “to lack the ability to know and understand homosexuals.” Needless to say, he was a self-hating closet homosexual. How much happier would his life have been if he’d lived in a more open world?

                    • Facile1

                      If you are Catholic, are you raising a son with homosexual tendencies to indulge in homosexual acts?

                      If your son had heterosexual tendencies, would you encourage him to indulge in homosexual acts in marriage to avoid unwanted pregnancies?

                      If you are NOT Catholic, what are you doing in this explicitly Catholic blog?

                  • Crisiseditor

                    On this site, we don’t put up with the name calling, especially from gay activists who are not motivated by a search for truth. If you don’t behave I’m going to send you to your room.

                    • Bill S

                      Understood. Sorry. It won’t happen again.

                    • Me

                      Isn’t it “name calling” to accuse someone of not arguing in good faith or not being motivated by a search for truth, etc., when really they are simply disagreeing with you?

                    • Crisiseditor

                      To accuse your opponent of being an narrow-minded bigot and a homophobe is a standard tactic of gay activists to shut people up. It is not an argument. Activists and trolls come to this site all the time. They are not here to learn anything. Just because they confirm your prejudice doesn’t prove their good intentions.

                    • Me

                      It’s not Bill S. who has been trying to “shut people up”! I’ve seen people on this website who appear very keen to make Pope Francis “shut up.” What name would you call them?

                    • Adam Baum

                      Check the IP addresses of “Me” and “Bill S’. Bet they are the same.

                    • Me

                      Yes, please do. Also please apply the same standards to Adam Baum as you do to Bill S. He is consistently hostile and insulting.

                    • Adam Baum

                      And yet I pale in comparison to you and your legions.

                  • Me

                    Yes, it is very sad when gays grow up with parents who fail to accept or understand them. Good friends of mine have a son who has turned out to be gay. He did everything he could to repress it and to try to be straight, but he finally came out. At 19, he is a very hurt and damaged young man — not because he is gay, but because his family has made being gay so difficult for him.

                    • Bill S

                      Exactly. Homophobia is more harmful than homosexuality ever could be. It’s not even an issue for my family. We don’t live in a culture where there is anything wrong about it. Gays are embraced as a beloved part of the community.

                    • Me

                      Your son is very fortunate to have a father like you.

                    • Bill S

                      Thank you. That is very kind of you.

                    • Adam Baum

                      You know it’s obvious when one poster uses two pseudonyms, especially when there’s inappropriate gratuitous praise.

                    • Me

                      Ask someone to check the IP addresses. You’ll find that they’re different. I will then accept your apology.

                    • Facile1

                      Don’t bother checking. Two different IP addresses will only prove two different Network Interface Cards are in use (perhaps by the same person under different usernames.)

                      A one-to-one correspondence does not exist between actual individual human beings and IP addresses.

                    • Adam Baum

                      Really? Has HIV been propagated by “homophobia”. I guess the initial U.S. infection was traced to a “homophobic” airline steward.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      “Gays are embraced as a beloved part of the community. ”
                      Love the sinner, hate the sin. Love isn’t indifference to sin.

                    • Bill S

                      Stop calling sexual acts between consenting adults: “sin”

                      That is just your terminology for something that you find to be offensive but which isn’t to the participants.

                    • Augustus

                      You are telling Catholics on a Catholic website to abandon Christianity so as to give comfort to those who prefer to govern their lives with less demanding moral standards. And that does not seem absurd to you?

                    • Bill S

                      A little bit. Maybe.

                    • Adam Baum

                      Sure because consent sanctifies everything.

                      Somehow I think my wife would take a dim view of this logic if I told her that I consorted with another woman, but it was ok because we both consented.

                    • Bill S

                      That is a violation of a contract you made with your wife to be faithful to one another. If you insist on using the word “sin”, what you would have committed is a sin against your wife. A good conscience would be one that compelled you to seek her forgiveness. If she forgave you, then who am I or anyone else to judge? What good does it do to tell a priest or to seek forgiveness from a “creator” who designed living beings with the instinct to copulate and reproduce so as to pass on their genes?

                    • Adam__Baum

                      You said “Stop calling sexual acts between consenting adults: “sin”.
                      The single exception is the refutation of the universal. As an aside, a marriage is not a “contract”, not even in civil matters, where it’s an estate. I entered a contract to buy a house, not to buy a wife.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      What good does it do to tell a priest or to seek forgiveness from a “creator” who designed living beings with the instinct to copulate and reproduce so as to pass on their genes?
                      Why don’t you try it and find out? By the way, no matter how dedicated you are to this enterprise of futility, you will not have that which you seek “the last word”.

                    • Bill S

                      I confessed all my serious sins years ago. In hindsight I see that I didn’t really need to had I known enough to forgive myself, learn from it and move on. It felt good at the time, anyway.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      “I see that I didn’t really need to”

                      How do you know that?

                    • Bill S

                      Maybe, at the time, I did need to.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      And maybe at this time, too.

                    • Gilbert Jacobi

                      And you know, honey – it just felt so …. right! How could there be anything wrong with it?

                    • Adam Baum

                      Yes, it is very sad when thieves grow up with parents who fail to accept or
                      understand them. Good friends of mine have a son who has turned out to
                      be a thief. He did everything he could to repress it and to try to be
                      straight, but he finally came out. At 19, he is a very hurt and damaged
                      young man — not because he is a thief, but because his family has made
                      being a thief so difficult for him.

                      Sounds stupid when it’s applied to other human weaknesses, doesn’t it. Of course we treat theft as a problem and if it is a compulsion, as a sickness: kleptomania.

                    • Me

                      The fact that you’re comparing homosexuality with crime is disturbing. Nobody has addressed my point that slavery was once supported by the Church in the same way homosexuality is now condemned.

                    • Adam Baum

                      True, theft was never called an abomination in Scripture.

                    • Facile1

                      Slavery was never supported by the Church.

                      “Slavery” was always an economic arrangement sometimes recognized (and sometimes not) by temporal powers (such as pharaohs, Caesars, kings, and nation states.) The Church did not condemn slavery, like it condemns homosexual acts. BUT the Church did not own slaves either (ever) in its history. Sodomy was a crime in the US until recently, so Adam’s comparison is valid.

                    • John200

                      Dear facile1,

                      Good point, that. The Church could never support slavery, and so did not. An article on the history of the Church’s actions against slavery would fit CrisisMag (stop me, admins, if I am presumptuous on this point).

                      In fact, such an article is already on paper. Composing it would be a matter of collecting what other authors have written. Sift it, produce a coherent summary and, bammo! You are done!

                      The truth is devastating to the Church’s critics (sorry, atheists, that’s just how it works, always and everywhere). Such an article would happily blast all these “the Church loves slavery” baloney arguments.

                      Seriously, admins, can you find an author willing to give it a go?

                  • Adam Baum

                    Wow Bill. (period not appropriate, since this isn’t a sentence, but you get my drift)

                    You are a piece of intellectual sloth. And you are “totally” narrow-minded and xenophilic. If you were to have a daughter who turned out to be zoophile, you would absolutely ruin her life. I can’t believe that anyone living in 21st century America could be so entirely disordered.

                    • Me

                      Er … Crisiseditor??? Please confirm that the rules apply equally to all.

                    • Adam Baum

                      What? I merely answered in kind.

                    • Crisiseditor

                      Okay, Adam. It turns out that Me and Bill S. are two different people. Is it really surprising that they would join forces on a site that does not share their world view? They have come here to challenge Catholic teaching. Should they be surprised to find resistance? But I’m all for a good debate as long as it’s constructive. So do be nice and civil.

                    • Adam Baum

                      It turns out that Me and Bill S. are two different people. Is it really
                      surprising that they would join forces on a site that does not share
                      their world view?

                      Two different personalties doesn’t mean two different people.

                    • John200

                      Dear CrisisEd,

                      Thanks for stepping in, but these two (Me and Bill S) are not challenging Catholic teaching. They are not even touching it. They are simply asserting that homo”sex”ual marriage, like homo”sex”ual activity, is good and that opposition to it is bad; wrong, stupid, evil, bigoted, etc.

                      No worldview presented, no evidence offered, no reasons given, just assertions without reason. It is hard to think they are doing anything but spending time playing games at CrisisMag.

                    • Crisiseditor

                      Good point, John200. I stand corrected.

                    • John200

                      No problem. Sometimes you see something I miss, and once in awhile the reverse will occur. I will continue to unplay their games and refute silliness as long as I have some light to see.

                      Best wishes to one and all at CrisisMag.

                    • Me

                      There are many Catholic teachings I support. Please do not make baseless and prejudiced assumptions.

                    • Adam Baum

                      Oh sure, the ones you like.

                    • Bob

                      Which ones? And the ones that you don’t support, how did you conclude the Catholic Church is in error?

                    • Crisiseditor

                      You support Bill S in his opposition to Church teaching on gay marriage do you not? You are joining forces with him against the Church. That is not baseless. It is quite evident to everyone.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Debate requires a statement and support. What I see from the “joined forces”, is unsupported assertions and aspersions of ill-will, atavism towards individuals who refuse to embrace their novelties.

                    • slainte

                      Wow Adam, the Editor just gave you detention!

                    • Crisiseditor

                      Rules apply to you too, young man.

                    • slainte

                      I am not a man, and I am not going to the principal’s office. So there!

                  • David Elton

                    In the future, people like Bill S will persecute and kill people like Tony. And the government will be OK with it.

                    • Bill S

                      Your predicted persecution will be self fulfilling. You won’t be able to discriminate against gays and will see that as persecution. I will not persecute anyone. Nor will others like me. We couldn’t be bothered.

              • Adam Baum

                Oh well, looks like the trolls are out in force.

              • John200

                Oh, good grief, Bill, you think parents and religious instructors are giving children faulty ideas. Your suggested improvement seems to be: you don’t even want people to know that “…there is something wrong in being gay.”

                There is EVERYTHING wrong in homo”sex”ual activity.

                That is, each thing, and all things; everything.

                • Bill S

                  Why is it that society (i.e., the normal people) can embrace gays while Catholics cannot? It’s all brainwashing. Of Catholics, not society.

                  • John200

                    Society does not embrace homo”sex”uals. Society knows your game and Creedence Clearwater Revival knows it, too…

                    Big wheel keep on turnin’,
                    Proud Mary keep on burnin’,
                    Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river.
                    Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river.

                    (here it comes, Bill, jump in on cue)

                    Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river….

                  • Bob

                    Catholics do accept and love all people. But we don’t accept a lifestyle that we believe goes against the will and plan of God. And I agree with John200, Bill. You’re just on this website to troll and attack Catholicism. You have no desire to possibly try and understand Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

                    • John200

                      Bingo! Adam, I remember you from other days on CrisisMag.

                      My best wishes to you and yours.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Huh?

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Be advised, I post pseudononymously. “Adam Baum” is a meant to be a homophone.

                    • John200

                      Just an acknowledgement that I remember you from other discussions.

                      No intentions other than that.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      My error. I thought “other days” meant a more distant past. In the words of “Emily Latella”, nevermind.

                    • John200

                      Yup, nevermind it shall be.

                      I get a lot out of your comments. Keep them coming.

              • Facile1

                Children who are being raised Catholic have a right to know what is wrong when one indulges in homosexual acts.

          • http://jimkalb.com/ James Kalb

            The status and effect of an institution depends on what it is–that is, on how it is defined. For a short discussion see http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/we-ignore-sex-at-our-peril.

            • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

              In the article you refer to, you write that marriage is “a natural institution that fits basic human needs. It’s an enduring physical, personal, and social union of man and woman that by the identity and natural functioning of the parties is ordered toward the creation and sustenance of new life.”

              First of all, this is irrelevant to Gay people. Secondly, couples are not required to marry to “create new life,” nor is the ability or even desire to “create new life” a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

              You also conveniently ignore the fact that countless Gay couples are raising countless adopted children to healthy, well-adjusted adulthood. If marriage provides a more stable environment for child-rearing, what sense does it make to deny those Gay couples the right to marry?

              • http://jimkalb.com/ James Kalb

                It’s obviously irrelevant to same-sex couples, which is why it makes no sense to change the definition of marriage to include them. The point that marriage is not a technique for producing children is dealt with in the article. And it’s no kindness to small children to assign them to same-sex couples.

              • Michael Susce

                Their is little or no evidence that “countless” gay couples are raising to well adjusted adulthood. I am sure the priests who indulged in young men thought it was loving, healthy and… Rather, countless children are being damaged and the culture at large because of such behavior.
                Your statement implies homosexuality is a moral good. If so, then all sexuality, if “loving” is acceptable. This includes sex with children, prostitution and incest. This is the irrationality of such a belief.
                As Aldous Huxley stated, he could not imagine men who wore top hats and bathed regularly could act so brutally. Welcome to the brave new world.

              • Adam Baum

                Please change your pseudonym. With such poor reasoning, identifying yourself as Polish only lends credence to one of the last few acceptable prejudices. We Slavs do not need identifiable case studies buttressing that prejudice.

              • John200

                Dear PolishBear,

                Thank you for, “First of all, (the true definition of marriage) is irrelevant to (homo”sex”uals).”

                That about settles your hash. Then you grace us with, “…countless Gay couples are raising countless adopted children to healthy, well-adjusted adulthood.”

                Pure idiocy. Sorry you didn’t do better today.

                Troll on, brother….

          • Pay

            There are many reasons to not conjure up the fiction called “gay marriage”. First among these reasons are children. They have rights. They out not be subjected to this cruel device where two men or women pretend to be mother and father. That this needs to be pointed out is beyond absurd. It is obvious those who care to see it.

          • Michael Susce

            It is impossible for state not to have a religion i.e. philosophy of governance. It is now and has been agnostic secularism; an atheocracy.
            To each his own, except those in the womb and those who consider homosexuality to be anathema.
            Mr. Kalb (and Ravi Zacharias video on ‘the incoherence of Atheism)
            is correct that the irrationality of this exclusively secular religion, like the USSR, will implode eventually but the cost, if not reversed in the short term will create decades of long term suffering.

            • Bill S

              “It is impossible for state not to have a religion i.e. philosophy of governance. It is now and has been agnostic secularism; an atheocracy.”

              Like I said, we do not have a state religion. Secularism is not a religion. If anything, it is a non-religion. It is as unreligious as you can get. It will not “implode”. It has nothing to do with the challenges we face such as the deficit.

              • musicacre

                Wrong. Keeping up with the”news?” Now they want to have chaplains in the military for atheists. Secularism is a very rigid religion, as a matter of fact, principle and practice.

                • Bill S

                  You are mixing up atheism and secularism. You could call atheism a religion (although atheists would prefer that you not), but secularism by its very nature is the opposite of religiosity. If you are secular, it means that you are not governed by any religion. I don’t know how I can make it any simpler than that. And yes. Atheists can use chaplains too. Chaplains provide guidance that doesn’t necessarily be religious.

              • Adam Baum

                All religion is a statement about the existence and nature of a deity or deities. Atheism states that there is no god, i.e., god is a nullity. Secularism constrains and confines religion, it is not nonreligioous, it is irreligious.

            • Me

              The US doesn’t have a religion because it’s not a theocracy. Citizens are free to practice any religion they choose.

              • Facile1

                Are we free to practice Catholicism when the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are challenged in public schools which Catholics pay for with their taxes?

          • Adam Baum

            No, not to each his own. Marriage compels public recognition. Now, refusing to make a cake for a homosexual couple subjects cake shops to prosecution and fines.

            You say there is “here is no acceptable reason to withhold the right to marry from same sex couples”, how so? If you are such a radical contractarian, then let’s really open it up. Consanguineous relationships, polygamy, anything goes.

            • John200

              Ha, ha, ha, that’s a funny one. But look, don’t puff Bill S up beyond what he is.

              He has been here for hours; there is no intellectual argument behind these smoke rings. He is not a radical contractarian. He is a homo”sex”ual troll.

          • Facile1

            No, this country may not have a ‘traditional’ State religion. BUT all taxpayers are made to support public schools regardless of one’s religious convictions.

            GAYS do not practice ‘freedom and equality’ in public schools.

        • slainte

          Mr, Kalb, The French revolutionists and the cult of reason adopted the principle(s) “Liberte, Egalite, and Fraternite”. Have you had occassion to reflect upon or write about the third principle “Fraternite”? What sort of brotherhood did the French rebels envision, a brotherhood of all mankind or just an elect few, and why? Thank you.

          • http://jimkalb.com/ James Kalb

            Good question! I think what they had in mind was universal brotherhood without more particular attachments. The problem of course is that their approach does away with the ways people actually connect so you get a lot of happy talk and a disconnected aggregate of individuals supposedly joined by a welfare bureaucracy, various initiatives to fight exclusion, etc.

      • cestusdei

        Freedom is not license.

        • Bill S

          Sorry. I don’t know what you are implying. I think we both recognize freedom when we see it and value it.

          • cestusdei

            I am sure you don’t understand. License is doing what you want regardless of the consequences or its morality. Freedom is NOT that. Freedom is the ability to do that which flourishes the person.

            • Bill S

              “License is doing what you want regardless of the consequences or its morality.”

              Freedom may include what you call “license”. I am free to go home and drink a case of Sam Adams Light if I want to regardless of the consequences or morality. I’m not free to get into my car and drive because of the danger I would pose to others. In my state, two men or two women are free to marry and start a family. They are not free to perform sex acts in public, not are heterosexuals. People who are free can do things that don’t adversely impact others that you may consider to be immoral.

              • cestusdei

                Relativism is what is used to destroy those who dissent, just as the article mentions. Freedom is doing that which is good. License is doing that which feels good but ultimately harms yourself and others. Your actions do have an adverse impact when they destroy marriage.

              • Facile1

                We all have “FREE WILL”. BUT “free will” does not mean there won’t be consequences.

                I do not believe sins should be criminalized. Nor do I believe the State should make public acts that should remain private. State-defined ‘marriage’ cannot make sense for homosexual acts anymore than ‘sodomy’ can make sense as a crime.

                • Paul McGuire

                  By your logic then the state should prohibit sex between opposite sex couples outside of marriage because of the harm that is caused by unwanted pregnancies. Yet the same freedoms mentioned above (and enshrined in the bill of rights) prohibit the state from mandating marriage for opposite-sex couples or telling couples when they can or can’t procreate.

                  Based on the number of custody disputes between un-married couples in the current system, I don’t see much if any push by the government to move couples towards marriage. In the past what pushed people towards marriage was the stigma that was attached to someone who shamed their family by conceiving a child outside of wedlock. Perhaps that still exists in some areas of the country but it has certainly become less of a big deal.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    “don’t see much if any push by the government to move couples towards marriage.”

                    And you won’t. Vast legions of unwed mothers are vast treasure troves of easily manipulated voters, who vote as subjects and recipients, rather than citizens and taxpayers.

          • Pay

            Very untrue. Many incorrectly view freedom as doing what one wants to do. They use relativistic standards.

            • Bill S

              Relativistic standards are the best we can do in this country. We do not have a state religion with its religious morals.

              • Facile1

                We have a Bill of Rights and a Constitution. Why are we playing with the standards set in these?

                • Bill S

                  We are not playing with any thing. The Supreme Court simply ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional. And so are state laws that restrict marriage unnecessarily.

      • msmischief

        Not worshipping them. Which means, as a corollary, that there are other virtues that must not be sacrificed on their altar.

      • John200

        Truth.

      • Adam Baum

        Absolute freedom ends in absolute tyranny.

      • Ralphster

        Christ never said He came so we could have freedom and equality and have it more abundantly. How about the Social Reign of Christ as an alternative? However, be on notice: you don’t get to do whatever you want simply because nobody allegedly gets hurt.

  • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

    For people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual) absolutely nothing has been “invalidated” or “redefined.” Most people are Straight, most people always WILL be Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that is going to change when Gay couples decide to get hitched also.

    Conversely, allowing Gay couples to marry will have ZERO impact on the number of Straight couples who divorce, have children out of wedlock, or give up unwanted children for adoption.

    The fact remains that, unless the Constitution applies only to Straight people, there is simply no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and protections that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

    • Bucky Inky

      Hello PolishBear,

      Dinner conversation at our family table a few evenings ago: Our five-year-old daughter innocently asked whether she could marry our two-week-old daughter. When told that this was impossible, we learn from the five-year-old daughter that the 11-year-old neighbor girl recently asked our daughter if she would marry her when she grew up.

      My wife and I are (as you term it) people who are Straight. Tell me now how nothing has changed for our family (particularly as it relates to how we “build lives and families together”) as a result of the recent entertainment of the concept of same sex marriage?

      • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

        If your daughter is also Straight, like you and your wife, nothing about the institution of marriage has changed for her, and perhaps at some point 20-30 years hence she will find a nice compatible man to marry. Of course the concepts of “marriage” and “love” are little more than play words for a five-year-old girl.

        If you daughter grows up to be a heterosexually-inclined woman, as she is statistically most likely to do, she will still undoubtedly have Gay friends, and she’ll probably hope that they, too, find compatible spouses. Thank goodness she’ll grow up in a world in which Gay people are treated with much greater kindness and dignity than they were once before.

        • concern00

          We need to get over this totally disingenuous notion, that has never been proven, that what arouses you is totally genetic. Childhood and especially adolescence are times of remarkably fluid sexuality. Bucky Inky’s point is especially valid. When we attempt to normalise the abnormal more of our children will make poor choices.

        • Bucky Inky

          How my daughter handles the information she has now received is another matter from what I was addressing in my previous comment. Obviously I will hope for a much different result for my daughter than what you envision, and I wasn’t anticipating a beneficial discussion with you on something about which we disagree so greatly.

          My point is merely this: You said that nothing will change for “Straight” families. I am showing you how it already has changed.

      • Paul McGuire

        Please explain how all the things you pretended to do in your childhood ended up resulting in how you act as an adult. Yes children will pretend to get married to their friends, perhaps of the same sex. But until they reach puberty this is all nothing but childhood fantasy.

        • Bucky Inky

          Thank you Paul, a very reassuring response. We will work and pray to the best of our ability that none of the nonsense expressed by the neighborhood girl will take any meaningful root. And mercifully you’re right, in and of itself the girl’s influence will most likely have an insignificant effect on our daughter’s overall outlook in life.

          However, since prior to this incident our daughter never expressed so much as an inkling of knowledge of marriage as being anything other than only between a man and a woman, my point still stands. “Gay marriage” has changed things for “straight couples” in undesirable ways, at least this “straight couple”. The question would not have occurred to my daughter had not the neighborhood girl suggested it. It would not have occurred to the neighborhood girl had she not been bombarded with the doctrine of it everywhere she turns.

          • Facile1

            Do not be deceived. The phenomenon of a female’s deep-seated self-hatred for her own body is very real. And why should women love their bodies? The Koran calls them ‘chattel’. Hindus burn their widows. The western press tell young girls daily that she is “equal” in rights ONLY when she exposes her perfectly healthy body to the risks of contraceptive drugs; when she aborts; or when she indulges in homosexual acts.

            This is NOT “scolding” or “shaming” on my part or on the part of the Roman Catholic Church. This is derision and revulsion for the female body on the part of a materialistic and secular world, where producing a baby is an economic liability to NATION STATES.

            I tell my nieces (I am childless myself) to learn to work so they can keep their babies (for they can lose their babies even if they marry in the Roman Catholic Church). There are not many men out there who have the courage to be a “Catholic husband and father” (unlike my own late father.)

            Pray for your daughters and your husband and go in peace.

            • Bucky Inky

              Facile1,

              Thank you for your obvious good will and encouragement.

              I don’t follow, however, the line of thinking about a “female’s deep-seated hatred for her own body,” and how this applies to the subdiscussion. Were you intending to respond to someone else?

              • Facile1

                The message was meant for you. I was trying to keep it short and only succeeded in being unintelligible. Let me try again.

                You felt reassured by Mr. McGuire’s commentary, even though Mr. McGuire (who is pro-SSM) is actually challenging your discomfort about what was happening to your daughters in school. You are right to listen to your misgivings.

                Contraceptives, abortion, and homosexual acts have a subliminal message that target young girls especially. The theme common to all is that the female body is the ENEMY to the freedom, the success, and the happiness that men enjoy. This is a powerful message that can engender a deep-seated hatred for her own body in a young girl.

                If you are still having difficulties following my line of thinking about a “female’s deep-seated hatred for her own body”, ask yourself these questions about contraceptives, abortion and homosexual acts:

                How is it healthy to expose one’s body to the cancer risks intrinsic to contraceptive drugs?

                What can possibly drive anyone to subject one’s body to an invasive surgical procedure such as an abortion?

                What does the indifference of homosexual acts to one’s own reproductive organs tell one about intimacy with another human being?

                Contraceptives, abortions, homosexual acts may be sold as “reproductive rights” for women and gays. BUT it is clear that it is only the female body that is drugged, assaulted and ignored.

                And it’s very hard to fight this message when you are a young girl in school, which I was at one time. Unfortunately, my mother (who was a lawyer) was not there for me and my sisters. I had a good father, but he wasn’t enough. All three of us girls have graduate degrees. Only one does not have cancer. She is the only one who did not take contraceptives. My own mother also took contraceptives and died of epidemetrial cancer in 2013. Your daughters will need you more than they will ever know.

                • Gilbert Jacobi

                  More than the female body is ignored, though I agree that separating women from their role as mothers is crueller to them than separating men from fatherhood is to them. All same sex sexual activity has the same result: depriving them of, or at least delaying and making more difficult, parenthood for its practitioners.

    • http://jimkalb.com/ James Kalb

      On your apparent belief that the status, effect, function, and future development of an institution has no relation to how it is defined, see http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/we-ignore-sex-at-our-peril.

    • cestusdei

      It will destroy the institution of marriage and family, which will delight many on the Left.

      • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

        DEAR CESTUSDEI:

        How so, exactly? Did you think that if Gay couples were denied the right to marry, they’d just suddenly stop being Gay? Did you think the marriage equality movement was an effort to make homosexuality compulsory?

        Actually the morality of Gay marriage is comparable to
        the morality of Straight marriage: It is morally and ethically preferable to
        encourage people toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to
        lives of loneliness and possibly promiscuity. So YES: Supporting marriage
        equality is the true conservative position.

        • Pay

          It is unjust to compare unequal items. Unequals must be treated unequally. To compare authentic marriage with faux marriage is nothing but a fiction. It is like the State declaring square circles exist. They do not exist simply because the State insists on it.

          • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

            DEAR PAY:

            Whether you think marriage equality for Gay couples is “nothing but a fiction” does neither concern nor interest me. I’m only interested in being treated fairly as a law-abiding, taxpaying Gay American.

            • Pay

              Pretending to be married is not right nor is it fair. It is not fair to society or to children. Propaganda is propaganda.

            • Facile1

              Nothing is stopping you from marrying a woman who will take you.

              And why should I as a law-abiding, taxpaying Catholic American pay public schools to teach the legal fiction that homosexual acts are less an abomination in a “marriage”?

        • cestusdei

          Marriage is only between a man and a woman. That is what it IS. There is no such thing as gay marriage, it can’t happen. It destroys the very notion of marriage and family thus harming society.

        • Facile1

          The morality of Gay marriage is NOT comparable to the morality of Straight marriage. Monogamy and commitment are not the values being propagated by Straight marriage — children and family are. Marriage cannot secure happiness. I know this for a fact. I was married for 10 years and unmarried for 23. If you are not happy alone, being married only makes one twice unhappy. And promiscuity is a choice in and out of marriage. So NO: Supporting marriage equality is truly an incomprehensible position.

    • Pay

      I guess using this logic anything goes. A father may marry his son then.

      Who cares about the kids? I mean so what if two mean pretend to be mom and dad? I am sure that is normal and healthy. I mean two men can give birth, right?

      • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

        DEAR PAY:

        By your logic, if a man is allowed to marry a woman, a father may marry his daughter then.

        Incest is no more relevant to marriage for Gay couples than it is to marriage for Straight couples.

        • Pay

          It is definitely related to homosexual “marriage”. Once you redefine reality there is no end point. If two men can be said to “married” there is no reason a father and son cannot be “married”.

          • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

            DEAR PAY:

            The U.S. Supreme Court did not conflate the issues of marriage for adult Gay couples, incestuous relationships, and “age of consent” laws, nor are they likely do. These “slippery slope” arguments are getting pretty tiresome.

            • Bob

              But the “slippery slope” arguments are true! Once marriage is open to everyone, then it’s open to EVERYONE! Who are you to say a man can not marry his son or daughter? Why….because of health reasons, or moral reasons? With HIV/AIDS still at an epidemic level amongst the gay community, would that be a good argument? Nope, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The door’s been kicked open. NAMBA (North American Man Boy Association) is already lobbying for marriage. Morality is now relative, anything goes. Slippery slope time…….just watch.

      • John200

        A homo”sex”ual father can sodomize his son, or sell the son to other enlightened homo”sex”ual members of the “father’s” social circle, and then sodomize his “son” some more, and sell him some more, and so on and so on.

        Lucky kid.

        American law seems to have missed this obvious method of procuring little boys for homo”sex”ual activity.

        And the law IS an ass (Dickens). Do not doubt it, we are living through the assness of the law.

    • Facile1

      How can “allowing Gay couples to marry … have ZERO impact” on children being raised in public schools? Maybe the boys might escape unscathed; but what about the girls?

      When the western press tell young girls daily that she is “equal” in rights ONLY when she exposes her perfectly healthy body to the risks of contraceptive drugs; when she aborts; or when she indulges in homosexual acts; why would SHE have any respect for her indisputably female body?

      • John200

        Dear Facile1,

        Keep on this theme. The impact on girls is severe, and 100% negative, and the homo”sex”uals know it. Obviously, the boys will not escape unscathed. Don’t let that dodge succeed.

        And the liberal press is on sale for 10 cents on the dollar or less. I won’t say I told you so, I didn’t tell you so, I could not have predicted this a few years ago, I didn’t predict it and make a few dollars on the decay of the liberal media, … ha, ha, ha, … shirtheads (I threw in an extra “r”).

        But Facile1, keep at it. You are right about the impact on girls.

  • Bob

    Gay marriage may become legal on earth, but it will never be blessed in heaven.

    • Bill S

      I can live with that.

      • Bob

        Sounds like the response of a good and true atheist.

        • Bill S

          Admit it. You have no idea about whether or not gay marriage is “blessed in heaven” or if there even is a heaven in which it would or would not be blessed. You are just commenting from a position of false beliefs and self righteousness. You really have no justification for condemning gay marriage.

          • cestusdei

            There is no such thing as gay marriage. It cannot exist as it is contrary to what marriage is.

            • Bill S

              “There is no such thing as gay marriage.”

              That is not true since there are many married gays. To say that there is no such thing is to ignore reality. In your mind, there is no such thing. In reality, there most certainly is. Come to Massachusetts, or actually any New England state, if you think there is no such thing as gay marriage. Besides, what is it to you?

              • cestusdei

                No, it is only pretend. It isn’t real. It is like claiming to be Napoleon. I have a stake in society and so I defend real marriage.

                • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

                  “It is only pretend. It isn’t real.”

                  Whether you think it’s pretend is quite irrelevant to the Gay couples who are legally married according the civil laws of where they live. Sorry if it causes you so much consternation.

                  • cestusdei

                    Whether homosexuals think they are married is irrelevant to me and to reality. I am sorry that causes you such consternation that your side is preparing to oppress those who dare oppose your agenda.

                  • Facile1

                    The Law is a human invention. The TRUTH (ie GOD) is NOT.

                    No amount of legal fiction can change the TRUTH (ie GOD).

              • Pay

                The State abuses its authority, but that does not make it right or authentic. Just like when the State imposed slavery that was unjust and contrary to nature.

                • Bill S

                  So, you think the state is abusing its authority by allowing gays to marry? It is actually an abuse to tell them they can’t.

                  • cestusdei

                    No more of an abuse then telling me I can’t marry my mother…or father.

                  • Adam Baum

                    It also sets age requirements, maximum degrees of consanguinity, and limits marriage to two individuals. Since polygamy has a long history, that proscription should be the next “abuse of authority” to be relegated to the dustbin of history, don’t you think.

                    And then when the Muslim population is large and vocal enough of a voting block, we will be told “marrying” before “first blood” must be allowed.

                    • Bill S

                      Such problems! It stinks being you, huh.

                    • John200

                      50+ comments, it stinks most foully being you, eh?

                      Don’t inhale around yourself. It’s toxic.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Have you considered that you might be projecting?

                  • Facile1

                    One cannot point to any evidence that homosexuals exist. One can only point to homosexual acts.

                    So how can it be abuse to tell anyone they cannot marry a gender that does not exist?

              • rook

                You are the one ignoring reality. In the same way that gold is defined by its fundamental atomic structure, marriage is defined as a union between people of opposite sexes. It is not biologically possible for a marriage to exist between people of the same sexes. The states who have legalized fake marriages (gay ‘marriages’) are doing the equivalent declaring that aluminum is the same as gold and should be recognized as such in all legal matters despite the fact that it is not true. Then we get people such as yourself running around saying similar things to what you are saying here. “Come to Massachusetts!!!!!!!!! Here gold and aluminum is now equal!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just look at all you ignorant of reality bigots!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just look at how stupid you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Duhhhh!!!!!”

                • Bill S

                  “Just look at all you ignorant of reality bigots!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just look at how stupid you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Duhhhh!!!!!”

                  You said it. Not me. You are against gay marriage but it will soon be legal everywhere. You have no say in the matter. Don’t take it out on me.

              • Facile1

                Your married gays cannot consummate the marriage. They lack parts.

            • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

              How long will you continue to oppress those of us that identify as Napoleon? We’ve got the funny hats and everything! Legislation forcing you to salute us and say, “Oui mon general!” is inevitable. We’re here, we’re French emperors. Get used to it.

              • cestusdei

                It is you who oppress us. You who by destroying the family cause pain. You who teach others to hate us.

                • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

                  You do realize I’m making a reductio ad absurdum, right?

                  • cestusdei

                    It is hard to tell as gay activists use absurd arguments all the time.

                    • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

                      That’s a fair point.

              • Facile1

                Why do you continue to feel oppressed if you’re so sure you won?

          • Bob

            It always amazes me how much time atheists spend posting on Catholic websites.

            And yea……I do have an idea that marriage is blessed in heaven. But it would be useless to explain to you because like all the atheists I see posting on Crisis Mag’s articles, you’re probably not here to be opened minded and possibly learn something, you’re most likely here to attack the Catholic Church.

            No heaven, eh? Let’s do this: I’ll live the rest of my life like there is a heaven (and a God), and you live the rest of your life like there is no afterlife joy and divine eternity. When we both die, either your right or I’m right. If your right, it doesn’t matter how we lived our lives…..it’s total lights out for both of us. But if I’m right, and there is a heaven and a God and only one of us (moi) lived life like there was a God, well, good luck!

            • Bill S

              ” But if I’m right, and there is a heaven and a God and only one of us (moi) lived life like there was a God, well, good luck!”

              That is a silly way to go through life.

              • Bob

                You could die tonight. What is your plan if there is a God who’s existence you have ignored and denied?

                • Bill S

                  Do you think that the person that you think created the universe would give a damn about whether or not I believe in him? Seems pretty petty to me.

                  • Bob

                    Probably yes, He would care whether or not you believed in Him. Or do you have such a low opinion of your own existence?

                    • Bill S

                      You are projecting a human emotion of caring about whether or not someone believes in him onto the hypothetical architect of all creation. Belief is something the Church needs you to have so it can have as many followers as it can to fill the collection baskets. Their is no penalty for not believing. Not is there any reward for believing. That is just a very childish way to look at the world.

                    • Bob

                      How do you know that you are right? I don’t need any religion or belief system when I look up at billions of stars on a clear night and my internal, natural reaction is “where did all those stars come from….who made them??”

                    • Bill S

                      “where did all those stars come from….who made them??”

                      Science can answer most of your questions. It has yet to answer some questions that religions have taken the liberty of answering in an entirely speculative and incorrect manner. At least scientists no what they don’t yet know. Religious think they have the answers to what science has not revealed but they don’t really.

                    • Bob

                      How can science answer most of my questions? Explain. Science says that the universe was started by the Big Bang, but how was the Big Bang created and started?

                    • Bill S

                      We don’t know that yet. To say it was God is what scientists call the “God of the Gaps” explanation. Better to just admit we don’t know that, nor do we know how life began. But we don’t just give up and say that God did it. That stifles the research needed to find a natural answer.

                    • LarryCicero

                      Bill, I went to an estate sale of a widow of a mafia hitman. Of particular interest to me was a bible. It had several pages marked. I was very curious – what does the widow of a well known mafia murderer pray for? So I bought the bible, took it home and read through all the places that were marked. I left it in the hallway outside our bedroom on a dresser. I was awakened that night by what sounded like an old man out of breath. I would have dismissed it as a dream, but my wife turned and whispered “what was that?” The next night we were awakened again by an unusual smell – it smelled like tobacco, but we don’t smoke. The hitman was a smoker. If science can explain this, great. But I put forth another explanation – that this man, who was a bad man, had a soul, and he might not be in hell or heaven, but in purgatory and asking for more prayers. Or do you think ghosts are all make believe? Ofcourse I cannot prove that this happened, but it did, and it makes one question if there are things invisible in which one has solid reason to believe.

                    • Bill S

                      Sorry. Based on my worldview, I have to conclude that you have either imagined or made up that story. I don’t know you well enough to ascertain your mental health or your motive, but a thorough investigation would come up with a natural explanation for the entire story.

                    • John200

                      Your problem is your worldview. Trolling on a website where the truth is known might help you, so stick around.

                      We won’t hold your multiple idiocies against you. But we will laugh them to scorn (sorry, that is a human failing).

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Bill strikes me as needy. Perhaps he pursues futility with such a passion because it provides him with the closest thing to human contact that he has, for obvious reasons.

                    • John200

                      Yes, there is a scent of need here. It comes through loud and clear.

                      A human being with needs, lashing out at those who know the truth he wishes were not true. Many of us have been in that condition.

                      I told him the truth, and wished him well. Sincerely. You never know what straw will break the camel of idolatry’s back.

                    • LarryCicero

                      You would have to conclude that I am a liar. I would question my mental health too. But like I said, my wife had the same experiences. So that leaves out dream or hallucination. I have no motive to convert you to my religion or to a belief in God or an afterlife, as I do not know you other from what you have posted on this thread; What do I have to gain? Sorry, but an investigation will turn up nothing. I removed the bible from the house after the second incident and gave it to the priest who held the funeral mass for the widow, and have had nothing to do with it ever since. There have been claims of ghosts for (lack of a better word) eternity. Are they all lies and hallucinations? My only motive is to make you reconsider, as I pray for all souls and believe that God’s mercy is beyond our comprehension. Good Luck.

                    • Bill S

                      I believe that you believe. There may be unexplainable phenomena but they are not indications that any one religion is true. Praying for the soul of someone you believe to be in Purgatory is a superstition that might make you feel good about yourself. But it is a waste of time and emotions. I on e went to a chapel and said a rosary for each person I was once close to, including my parents and grandparents. It felt great, but I now see it as silly.

                    • Facile1

                      The problem with a ‘truly scientific’ worldview is that it is necessarily ‘bounded’. I’m speaking as a mathematician. My undergraduate degrees are in engineering and my graduate degree is in mathematics. I gave up that worldview because it does not conform to reality.

                      The truth of the matter is, there is nothing ‘reproducible’ or ‘repeatable’ in a material and ephemeral universe. There can be no evidence of ‘non-singularity’, when by ‘material’ we mean ‘evidence decays’ and by ‘ephemeral’ we mean ‘evidence is a function of time’. We live in a world of singularities (miracles if you will) like it or not and it is ONLY by pretending that a phenomenon is ‘non-singular’ will the numbers work on paper.

                      To have never examined what one truly believes in is a very silly way to go through life.

                    • Bill S

                      Hold on. Something isn’t right. You have degrees in engineering and mathematics? And you have given up on the scientific worldview because it does not conform to reality? Wow! What happened to you?

                    • Adam__Baum

                      We’re wondering the same about you.

                    • Facile1

                      Hold on. Something isn’t right. You’re past 60 years of age and STILL an atheist?

                      My education actually slowed me down. What’s your excuse?

                    • LarryCicero

                      Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature…..has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse…..they became futile in their thinking…. (Romans 1)

                    • Adam__Baum

                      And what if the answer is supernatural?

                    • Bill S

                      That would change everything. Bill S would be nothing more than an ignorant troll.

                    • slainte

                      “….Bill S would be nothing more than an ignorant troll”.
                      You will never be what you describe. You are God’s most beloved child, as is your son.
                      You have mentioned elsewhere that you were once Catholic. If I may suggest, please find a Catholic Church and visit.
                      If possible, please visit during a Eucharistic Adoration; just come, sit, reflect, and open your heart to Our Lord. He will answer you, and He will fill you with His peace.

                    • Bill S

                      Thank you. I’ve done those things. Thank you for caring, but I’m good.

                    • LarryCicero

                      Your “Thank you”, though not directed at me, makes me feel good. I wish you “good luck” but pray for you never-the-less, not because it makes me feel good, but because I don’t have faith in luck. I’m sure there are others, including those you once prayed for, doing the same for you. God Bless.

                    • Facile1

                      Science is the study of material and ephemeral phenomena.

                      Theology is the study of spiritual and eternal phenomena.

                      So exactly how can science be expected to answer religious questions?

                    • Bill S

                      Where did the stars come from is a question for science not theology.

                    • Facile1

                      Actually, one can argue that the basic axiom of science (ie the ‘non-singularity’ of phenomena) is logically impossible. But this requires some exposure to higher mathematics (past calculus) and therefore, is not appropriate to this forum. The utility of science rests on the immediacy and granularity of a solution to a ‘bounded’ problem. It is more correct to say that “Theology can answer ALL questions, whereas Science can answer some within constraints.”

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Science can answer how, not why. Of course “science” once told us that time was invariant and most scientists did not know they were wrong in adhering to the Newtonian view.

                    • Facile1

                      Tithing is entirely voluntary in the Roman Catholic Church. One reason why I decided to go Roman rather than Mormon.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      What’s childish is to think you know everything, that if something is apparent to your five senses and readily graspable by your viscera, then it couldn’t possibly exist.

                      Then again, it is philosophically impossible to prove a nullity, so you are irrational as well.

                  • Adam Baum

                    Why should expect your Creator to impose his company on you, if you’ve consistently rejected it as non-existent?

                    • Bill S

                      My “Creator” is 3 billion years of evolution from the first living cell to me, a human being. It is a process, not a person.

                    • John200

                      You are quite right. What could be created by a process starting with one celled animals is not a person.

                      Not that you understand what I said, indeed I am sure you don’t, but your conclusion is correct.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Then why worry about anything, including theist fools? Just lean back, and smile confidently in the firm conviction that one day, you’ll draw that last breath, and disappear into nothing, just leaving a corpse that will be gradually be consumed by saprophytes.

                  • Facile1

                    I asked myself the very same question when I was an atheist (not so long ago).

                    Then it hit me.

                    GOD is love.

                    GOD is LOVE and HE created us in HIS image because of LOVE.

                    GOD is LOVE and HE lived, died and was raised from the dead because of LOVE.

                    GOD is LOVE and HE suffers us to reject HIS perfect LOVE because of LOVE.

                    GOD gave us (His children) the ‘FREE WILL’ to deny Him and all His works. Thus we are free to choose ‘hell’ (where we won’t find Him, His justice, His mercy or His LOVE.)

                    GOD love us first and forgave. GOD loves us now and always. And even if we should choose ‘hell’, GOD will love us still and won’t forget.

                    And YES, that is why HE gives a damn about whether or not petty creatures (such as ourselves) believe in Him.

                • Me

                  Maybe God will embrace BIll S. for being a good dad and for being kind and accepting? And maybe those of you who didn’t treat gays quite as well will be dispatched for a little spell in purgatory?

                  • Bob

                    Possibly. But Bill doesn’t believe there is a God to embrace him after this life. This is a possibility that he does not want, and frankly from his posts, recoils against a God embracing him at the time of death. You die as you live. Even in death, is Bill going to suddenly believe and embrace the God he never believed in? It seems very contradictory and against reason. I hope Bill and all atheists turn towards God. As with Paschal’s Wager, it seems to be at the very minimum, a more rational approach.

                    And you fail to read the depth of Catholic teaching on many of the posts here. The vast majority of posts are of the “love the sinner, hate the sin” context. I don’t see anyone mistreating someone with a homosexual tendency.

                  • John200

                    Well, maybe lots of things.

                    In your case, maybe you will spend a long, eternal spell somewhere else — perhaps you should worry a great deal over whether you can be saved after calumniating and taunting Catholics.

                    Your god, who seems to imitate Moloch, wants you to embrace Bill for faking his son’s homo”sex”uality and trolling a website where the truth is respected and — heavens! atheists cannot do this! — embraced.

                    Best to you and yours. We don’t hate you; we aren’t like you. Do you see?

                    • Me

                      There is nothing “Catholic” about some of the abuse and judgmental behavior going on here.

                    • John200

                      There is nothing Catholic about some of the heresy and scandal, not to mention the calumny, going on here, introduced by our friends who obstinately resist the sound of the truth.

                      Try going toward the light, Me. You won’t go back to darkness. You can start to live in the light, now; this minute.

                      You should accept, Me. It is a very good offer.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Oh that’s right, the invaders get to decide the rules of decorum.

              • Facile1

                All human action in predicated on faith because no one (including you) knows the future. So even if GOD does not figure in your vision of the future, you will have to believe “in something”.

                We all begin as atheists. That you remain still is telling.

                To have NEVER examined exactly what it is you believe in is a silly way to go through life.

                • Bill S

                  I was an on and off Catholic for 60 years. I overdosed on it in a program called Cursillo (little course) and I now see how silly and potentially harmful it can become.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    No zealot like an apostate.

                  • Facile1

                    So, once you were atheistically believing in GOD and now, you are theistically believing in NOTHING?

                    Learning to think straight requires training in all of the following:

                    1) Discernment (ie the evaluation of evidence) — which is the use of human senses and human reason.

                    2) Self-examination (because human senses and human reason are subject to human error and manipulation.)

                    3) Acts of FAITH (or obedience to secular authority) because all human action is predicated on one’s vision of the future (before or after death).

                    There is only ONE of two directions one can take on a straight line — away from GOD or towards GOD.

                    By your own admission, you have been going around in circles.

                    LOVE GOD FIRST and go in peace.

            • Adam Baum

              It always amazes me how much time atheists spend posting on Catholic websites.

              Not me. I’ve noticed that because atheism is irrational (it is philosophically impossible to prove nullity), it must survive by repetition and ferocity. A perfect example of “the big lie”.

          • Facile1

            GOD gave us (His children) the ‘FREE WILL’ to deny Him and all His works. Thus YOU are free to choose ‘hell’ (where YOU won’t find GOD, His justice, His mercy or His LOVE.)

            I can live with that.

            • Bill S

              Wow. Really. Because I have a different worldview than you?

              • John200

                No, it is because Facile1 has the truth and you do not.

      • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

        So can I.

      • John200

        Malheureusement, you can’t. You cut yourself off from life with that “thinking.”

        You will learn different in time. Well, one hopes you learn in time.

  • JERD

    “Modern thought tends toward an ideal of transformation through radical simplification and controlled but ruthless use of force.”

    This may be true, but the issue is in our system of government how is this tendency manifested? The limited government model envisioned by our Founders of a federal government of checks and balances, and reservation of rights in the states and in the people is unrecognizable today. The Windsor case serves as a perfect example.

    One unelected man, Kennedy (he was the deciding vote), ruled that a bedrock institution of western civilization was irrationally structured. The distinctiveness of marriage has been erased by the unchecked “ruthless force” of one man. Marriage is now, as determined by this judicial fiat, anything at all, so marriage must now, by logical extension, be nothing at all. There is nothing distinctive in it. To reduce to nothing a cornerstone of civilization by the stroke of one man’s pen is indeed radical in its simplicity.

    Our democracy is in ruins

    • Bill S

      My goodness. You are making such a fuss about this. Wah, wah, wah!

      • JERD

        Brilliant reply.

      • John200

        My goodness. You are contributing so little to the discussion. Wah, wah, wah!

        Are you holding back the truly brilliant thoughts that underlie your “comment?”

        • Bill S

          I was just quoting Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz when the Lion was picking on Toto and she slapped him. It is like the Catholics are trying to oppress the gays but then start sobbing when the government slaps them in the face and stops them.

          • Adam Baum

            I didn’t realize August was troll season.

          • John200

            Catholics aren’t sobbing. We are not the slightest bit weepy, because we know how the story ends. But I feel a bit sad when I see where you are directing yourself.

            Now, in your world we are always supposed to think the homo”sex”ual is your son, or that “great guy” next door, or the wonderful teenage homo”sex”ual, or a six year old, or anybody but you. And it would not become a homo”sex”ual to make things up because homo”sex”uals always come to Catholic websites to tell the truth, and….

            Ouch! I was laughing so hard I fell off my chair. That hurts, and my arm sure had a lot of blood in it. I gotta go see the trainer for repairs.

            As for you, if you are beginning to wake up, you might stop trolling and start taking Catholic truth seriously.

            RCIA is the next step. Rise, and be on your way (can you guess whose title that is?).

    • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

      DEAR JERD:

      If you have a problem with the fact that our Supreme Court justices are “unelected,” that’s something you’ll have to address at the Constitutional level.

      • Adam Baum

        The Constitution already provided for that. The organization and the jurisdiction of the Court are to be the purview of Congress. The problem is that “judicial review” is an arrogated power, unchallenged in the 210 years since Marbury v. Madison. Now the Court asserts a right of supremacy. Interestingly, in recent years, it has been busy vacating state laws, but can’t seem to assert that right with Congress.

        Worse than the fact that the justices are unelected is that way too many come from a very limited and insular background. Too many bleed Crimson, if you get my drift.

    • slainte

      Objective Truth will always prevail over subjective positions. Unfortunately it may take a very long time, and cause great disruption and confusion before Truth is restored.

    • Paul McGuire

      I don’t think it is accurate to say that he declared traditional marriage irrational. He never got so exact as to say that he was applying rational basis and thus didn’t really take the leap that would have been required to reach his decision. That’s really what is wrong with the decision, it doesn’t really make any sense if you try to read it in whole. It makes some great soundbites but doesn’t really base the decision on the law.

      So on the one hand I really like the result reached but on the other I find it troubling how little guidance the decision gives to future courts that will now have to deal with the myriad of issues that will arise when dealing with same-sex marriage in states trying to apply the Windsor case.

      • JERD

        The decision makes a great deal of sense if we recognize what is taking place. The court could not reach its decision without being arbitrary (Agreed that the court did not apply the rational basis test. My use of the term was not intended to reflect a term of art employed in constitutional analysis, but rather to demonstrate that Kennedy’s opinion was arbitrary) The Court, as it did in Roe, has broken the constitutional chains that keeps it in check.

        What sense then can be made of this opinion? This makes sense -The court has assumed unto itself the power to erase sexual distinctions within the institution of marriage. It is, as Kalb indicates, a “ruthless” use of judicial “force.”

        There is no doubt what effect this case will have in the states. By decree of this highest Court distinctions in marriage laws based on sex are now the product of only a “bare desire to harm.”

        You are correct, the decision is not based on the law. We are now a nation of men (in the gender neutral sense of course), not of laws, and we are all the worse for it whether you agree with the outcome of the case or not.

        • slainte

          The judiciary has legislated just as it did in Roe v. Wade.

      • Adam Baum

        “I find it troubling how little guidance the decision gives to future
        courts that will now have to deal with the myriad of issues”

        Anthony Kennedy and four other philosophy kings can rearrange an institution that evolved over millenia, reacting to a novel whim, but are incapable of providing for unimaginable consequences of this institutional rupture.

        Then again, as they say, any jack*ss can kick down a barn, they aren’t quite as good at building them.

    • Adam Baum

      We don’t live in a democracy and never did. You would never want to live in one either.

      The United States of America is (was) technically a democratic republic, with a whole array of institutional checks on popular whim and mass delusion, precisely to avoid the pitfalls pure democracy, which is nothing but a tyranny of the majority, intrinsically unstable and unpleasant.

  • Paul McGuire

    I’m at a loss how you come to the conclusion that the next step here is going to be the silencing of everyone who disagrees with them. The First Amendment is not going to disappear. The question going forward, as it has been for the last five years or more, is going to be how far the First Amendment protections go. Thus, we will eventually draw a line where the freedom of a religious person to state their views on same-sex marriage ends and the rights of others begins.

    Your one link to support your claim that the “progressive agenda” leads to violence towards those who disagree is not very clearly presented on the page where it leads. If anything the violence I’ve read about lately has been inflicted upon gay men and lesbian women by conservative groups. Examples include recent anti-gay violence in Russia and even gay men who have been beat up in various parts of the United States.

    I haven’t read of anyone beating up a Christian for refusing service to a same-sex couple who wishes to get married. I have only read about lawsuits and bad reviews online. If such violence did in some way occur I would agree with you that it is improper, but there is no evidence that it has or will occur.

    • http://jimkalb.com/ James Kalb

      “Open-ended suppression of dissidence” would include prosecutions or large civil penalties for refusal of service, which we’ve had in this country, and criminal prosecutions for stating moral objections to homosexuality, which we’ve had in a number of Western countries. Those things have already happened, and the majority opinion’s assertion that the motive for defining marriage in the traditional and natural way is hatred and the desire to injure makes it unclear why contrary views should get any protection at all. And I say that the left is becoming less violent but more intolerant. There is still the threat of violence of course. Mary Stachowicz was brutally murdered for criticizing homosexuality, and I have a friend who received death threats because she gave money to the California Prop 8 campaign.

    • Me

      “I’m at a loss how you come to the conclusion that the next step here is going to be the silencing of everyone who disagrees with them. ”
      The only attempts to silence anyone that I’ve seen in this thread is an effort to silence “gay activists”.

  • Me

    Scalia’s dissent is bizarre, melodramatic, and self-centered. Sorry, Antonin, but it wasn’t actually about you and whether or not you got your poor little feelings hurt. Kennedy’s opinion was directed at DOMA, not at Scalia. As one can see from the extract below, Kennedy’s opinion is thoughtful, nuanced, and dismantles DOMA’s relationship with the constitution under equal protection principles.

    “(b) By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect, DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality ‘must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot’ justify disparate treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534–535. DOMA cannot survive under these principles. Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state law. DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”

    • Adam__Baum

      Most of your posts are bizarre, melodramatic, and self-centered, starting with your ego maniacal pseudonym,

      Kennedy writes screeds that are based on his personal sensibilities.

  • David Elton

    Don’t worry, folks! When Islam takes over the US, there ain’t gonna be no more “gay marriage”.

    • Bob

      EXCELLENT point! Why don’t all these pro gay marriage people posting on this website go annoy the Muslims on an Al Quaeda or Taliban website?! They sure ain’t fans of the gay lifestyle. Maybe the pro gay crowd can insult the prophet while their at it. That would be fun to watch!

  • Sorry

    Doesn’t Sodomized Union sound good to a Sodomite anymore?
    I wonder why the Sodomites do not want to call a spade a spade?
    Aren’t Sodomites proud of their sexual freedom?

    • slainte

      Uncharitable, unchristian, not Catholic. Your words provoke and are grounded in anger, not He who is Love; they do not inform.
      No child of Our Lord Jesus Christ is a “Sodomite”. Our humanity and identity are not defined by our actions. We are all sinners. He who condemns the personhood of another is doing the work of the enemy.
      Christ calls us to love the sinner, hate the sin. Pax.

  • Thomas C. Coleman, Jr.

    Perhaps I read the remarks of others too quickly, but I did not ntoice any reference to the systematic infustion of not only relativism but nihilism into our society by the nearly total occupation of our academic, entertainment, and religious worlds by people dedicated to the overthrow of Christian Civilzation. You know i that I am referring to the ideoogy that told the world that the family is the root of all evil. The closest reference I could find in all of the erudite comments posedt so far is the name of Rousseau, whose sick ideas are seminal and were spreading among the soi-dissant enlightened of Europe before Marx and Engles were even born. But it was Marxism that provided the politiccal apparatus needed to spread the contagion. Does anyone imagine that with the supposed collapse of Soviet Communism Marxists around the world ran off and demanded to be baptized? They are still here in our universities and seminaries convincing Christians in parituclar that the purpose of Christianity is not Eternal Salvation but social justice, which inlcudes, of course, sos-called marriage equality. Is the day far off when the Cathoic Church will be denoucned not only in San Francisco but in Washsington as a hate organization? When that occurs the only so-called Catholics allowed to operate parishes will be those who reject the teachings of Holy Mother Church in favor of a state-appoved body similar to Communist China’s Patriotic Organization. The Catholic Church used to be the civlied world’s main defence against the anti-civlization of Marxism. For his efforts alone to protect Christendom Pius XII should be canonized. Now Catholics are afraid of being called McCarthyists just as they are afraid of being called homophobes. If we are afraid to name our enemy we are helpless to defeat it. .

  • Pingback: More on the Future of Liberalism | The Orthosphere

  • Pingback: Be Hopeful: The Lunacy Can’t Last Forever | Crisis Magazine

  • Pingback: Be Hopeful: The Lunacy Can’t Last Forever - CATHOLIC FEAST - Every day is a Celebration

  • Pingback: Catholics: Increasingly a Dissident Minority - Crisis Magazine

MENU