Real Victims of the Gay Bullyboys

Her essay at Public Discourse has more than 48,000 Facebook shares and 2,600 Tweets. It is the anguished cry of a woman, a wife and a mother who has been deserted by her husband who took her children with him into that dark gay world.

Janna Darnelle, a pseudonym, tells the story of her ten-year marriage disintegrating when her husband decided he was sexually attracted to men. She says, “In an instant, the world that I had known and loved—the life we had built together—was shattered.”

Janna says she tried to get him to stay, appealed to him as a matter of vows and of honor and of fatherly responsibility. She and her children, though, had become “disposable … being gay trumped commitment, vows, responsibility, faith, fatherhood, marriage, friendships, and community.” We discover later, on a gay website, that her husband was a Christian pastor, but more on that in a minute.

She says the judge legislated from the bench and tried to right all the wrongs against gays historically on the back of her and her children. She says the judge told her husband, “If you had asked for more, I would have given it to you.”

Janna’s husband went on to marry, first illegally, and then legally when her state made same-sex marriage legal. She said in “both cases, my children were forced—against my will and theirs—to participate.” In the second “marriage,” when her husband’s faux-marriage became among the first in her state, USA Today was there to take pictures including of her children. She said she was not allowed a voice in whether her children would be used as “props to promote same-sex marriage in the media.”

The response, as always expected and largely orchestrated, was oh what a happy family this new gay family. How happy they are! See! Janna points out that in any picture of the new happy family that someone is missing and it is the woman who made it possible.

There is not one gay family that exists in this world that was created naturally. Every same-sex family can only exist by manipulating nature. Behind the happy façade of many families headed by same-sex couples, we see relationships that are built from brokenness. They represent covenants broken, love abandoned, and responsibilities crushed. They are built on betrayal, lies, and deep wounds.

She goes on to condemn assisted reproductive technologies used by gay couples to have children. She considers this yet another form of exploitation and that “wholeness and balance cannot be found in such families, because something is missing. I [the mother] am missing.”

Her children were thrust into a deeply gay world. Her husband and his gay lover took the children to live in a gay-only condo where one of the men has a 19-year-old male prostitute “who comes to service him” and where a man in his late sixties has a boyfriend in his twenties, and where her children are taken to gay parties, “transgender baseball games, gay right fundraisers, and LGBT film festivals.”

I had missed this column but was alerted to it because of the great and brave Robert Oscar Lopez, who famously came out a few years ago as a man who was raised by lesbians and how harmful that was to him. He has subsequently become a global leader for children’s rights. On his Facebook page, Lopez said this woman was under attack from the gay bullyboys for something she had written on Public Discourse.

I discovered a cabal of pernicious gay bullyboys who are dedicated to tracking down and ruining the lives of anyone who steps out to tell their own story.

We are often told that we live in a narrative age and that no stories may be discounted. Read the response to Janna and you can see that not all stories are welcome. Most especially unwelcome are stories that do not march in step with this particular brand of sexual anarchism.

The first thing to note is how careful Janna was in her column. She used a pseudonym to protect herself, certainly, also her family and even the privacy of her husband. Among the very first things the gay bullyboys did was to discover her identity and announce it to the world.

Jeremy Hooper, who works with the thugs at GLAAD, runs a site called “Good as You,” went after Janna but the real action was in the comment section. In fact, among the first commenters was the pseudonymous Janna’s husband who promptly told everyone her full name, all the better to stalk her with. He did more than that, he published a photo of him with his lover and his children, obviously at some LGBT event because in the background are other gay men with their lovers lounging on the grass.

When you look at the picture, I think you can see pain in the eyes of their son. He seems embarrassed to be there with his father and his father’s lover and all the gay men around. The girl seems happy enough, she’s smiling. We are told that Lopez and others raised by gay parents also had smiling faces, but their smiles masked real pain and confusion at being thrust into the gay world.

The boys piled on after that. They hung poor Janna from a viral meat hook. One particularly creepy guy named Scott Rose even went onto her company’s Facebook page and complained about her:

This is a COMPLAINT against […], an executive assistant in […]. Under the nom de plume of “Janna Darnelle,” […] has published a horrifying, defamatory anti-gay screed on the website “Public Discourse.” The first problem would be that she is creating a climate of hostility for eventual gay elders and/or their visiting friends and relatives. The second problem would be that in the screed, she comes off as being unhinged. Her public expressions of gay-bashing bigotry are reflecting very poorly on LLC.

This is standard operating procedure for the gay bullyboys. They cannot stand even a single dissent from their march to dominance and punishment. Look what happened to Brendan Eich at Mozilla Firefox. All he did was donate to the Prop 8 campaign and the gay bullyboys drove him from his job. Here is a woman totally unknown to them, on a website that is hardly the largest in the land, and they track her down, expose her identity, besmirch her reputation and try to get her fired.

Someone came to her defense. Yet another pseudonymous writer published a column at Public Discourse explaining what had happened to Janna after she published her piece.

Rivka Edelman is a feminist writer, a scholar, a children’s right activist, who was raised by a lesbian. She rose to Janna’s defense and laid out the tactics of the gay bullyboys and lashed out at their misogyny.

Rivvka writes, “For those of you who avoid the subterranean landscape of online same-sex parenting debates, it is useful to be introduced to Scott “Rose” Rosenzweig, a virulently misogynistic LGBT activist. As soon as Darnelle’s essay was published, Rose went into action, darting from the blog Good As You to other sites in an effort to destroy her personally.” She goes further: “certain wings of the LGBT-rights movement function as all-white men’s rights groups. In our contemporary climate, these men are allowed to do great harm to women and children with impunity.” Hers is a feminist critique that social conservatives will find compelling. Robert Oscar Lopez makes the same arguments.

To gay men, women are no more than breeders to be used or parodied. “Practically speaking, Scott Rose and his compatriots have formed a men’s rights group that seeks to use women as breeders. These egg donors and surrogate mothers supply infants for a bustling market full of same-sex couples, for whom reproduction is naturally and biologically impossible.” Edelman says they are out to erase women.

Guess what happened to Rivka Edelman? They tried to crush her. They say they have found out her identity. Maybe. Maybe not. How they do this is remarkable and frightening, and they want us frightened though it is far from clear that they have found out her identity. After all, the sexual anarchists are known to tell a fib or two.

Let’s say they found out someone’s identity and, like Janna, they want to get her fired. They have dug up some aggressive comments she is supposed to have made in various comment boxes about gays and transgenders in order to show what a vicious bigot she is and how she should be punished for it. They want her. Oh do they want her. The comment boxes are full of vulgar attacks that I cannot and will not repeat.

These women are not only victims in their person lives; one was left by her husband for another man and a lesbian raised the other; they are victims here by the gay bullyboys simply for telling their personal stories.

One must believe that the likes of Jeremy Hooper and Scott Rose and all the nasties in the comment boxes are far from representative of gay culture. One hopes so. We look forward to the day when Hooper-Rose et al are ostracized for their behavior.

Just like marriage is wanted only by a tiny subset of the 1.6 percent of gay men, such bullying can only exist among a small but vocal minority. The problem, among many, is that the radicals tend to chase out the moderates. We see this in the Arab and Muslim world. We see this in many political movements. Moderates are considered sell-outs, soft, also to be punished.

So, the gay bullyboys number only a few, I hope. And they have likely waited all their lives to get even. They were teased in junior high and have not gotten over it. One of the problems is that the gay bullyboys include those at powerful organizations, the Human Rights Campaign, for instance, and GLAAD. Naturally fund-raising has a lot to do with that. HRC needs to raise $50 million a year so they have to find discrimination under every bed.

The few gay bullyboys are going to do great damage to women, children and society before they are done. The only ones to hold them off are the more sensible of the LGBT movement. Where are they? They should step in now to defend these two women who have come under vicious attack.

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. He is the author of Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data published by Regnery. He is also the author of the new book Little Suffering Souls: Children Whose Short Lives Point Us to Christ published by Tan Books. The views expressed here are solely his own.

  • ForChristAlone

    They say that hate is not the opposite of love. I say otherwise. There is no one who hates more than Satan.

  • Dick Prudlo

    All of this will be resolved by our feeling prelates as they distribute Holy Communion to Janna”s Ex and his loving partner. The “dark world” is indeed dark, and the Vatican is clearly the epicenter of it. The late great Catholic Church, once something the world feared and hated, is now joined at the head with it in sin. It all comes back to this folks, WAKE UP!

    • Scott W.

      Actually, I’ve been following the synod summaries and I have yet to see anything indicated that Communion for the divorced and re-married or same-sex “marriages” is even seriously being considered.

      • GG

        That is a very poor reading of the Synod, the lead up to it, and all that has been happening among the Cardinals, Pope, and the Vatican. I do not want to turn this into a rabbit hole but it seems dishonest to minimize what is a serious problem.

        • Dick Prudlo

          read above

      • Dick Prudlo

        Be patient, Scott, and all will be provided with great pastoral care.

        • GG

          Scott should read Dr. Royal’s columns on the Synod at the Catholic Thing dot com. Then he can get a taste of what is actually happening.

      • JP

        My fear is not what Synod will officially do. But how the different layers of bureaucracy will operate. Most of the work that will be done by the different committees will be done behind closed doors. It is the work of these people that bears watching, for it will be their recommendations that will be sent to the National Bishops Conferences worldwide. Their work will reflect the “Spirit of the Synod” in much the same way that reforms of the 1970s reflected the Spirit of Vatican II.

        Humanae Vitae reflects the long held dogmatic view of marriage, procreation, and the relations between husband and wife. Yet, what has been transmitted to the bishops conferences, DREs, and our Catholic schools is something entirely different. Doctrine and “praxis” have been separated. Who’s to say the same thing will not occur with the Synod on the Family?

        • ME

          Have you seen any of the priests coming out of the seminaries lately? At least the ones in my area, we don’t have any worries about them waffling on the issues. They are very strong men, who preach the truth, and are very approachable. We are very blessed in our part of the country to see these great men answering the call.

      • DE-173

        There’s a couple of them.

        • GG

          More than a couple.

    • Augustus

      You are always a reliable source for hyperbolic statements. The gays are perfectly capable of promoting their agenda without help from the Catholic Church. Yes, there are some cowardly prelates and sympathetic bureaucrats but that hardly justifies your indictment of the entire hierarchy. Your charge that it all comes from the Church itself is an outrageous calumny. Given their hostility toward Catholicism, I hardly think gay activists would agree with you.

      • JP

        Here’s a bit of calumny:

        “That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by
        the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among
        the Church’s open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored
        and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous,
        the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to
        many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more
        lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love
        for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology,
        nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the
        enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt
        themselves as reformers of the Church.”

        I’m not saying that the entire hierarchy is guilty of heresy and apostasy. But neither did Pope Pius X during his Pontificate.

        • Augustus

          I do not disagree with you that there are laity, clergy–and yes prelates–who do the Church a great disservice. But Mr. Prudlo’s comment, however, is far more sweeping an indictment than Pius X’s. That’s the difference.

      • Dick Prudlo

        Keep hiding your head in the sand. This is, by the way, just my prediction and nothing more. I have viewed the Church from very close in and taking any other view of this very secretive synod (Vatican is parsing and selecting everything it does for proper distribution) would be, for me, a hideous sin.

        I indict no one, Augustus, I will leave that up to He who has that power.

        • Augustus

          Whether you call it a prediction or a declarative statement, it is still a sweeping indictment of the Vatican. (How is saying “The Vatican is the epicenter of the dark world” not an indictment?) The Church is not doing what you claim it is doing. If the Vatican in fact violates Church teaching on who can receive the Eucharist, then you would be on solid ground. Until then, you are on thin ice. Hold your fire until you have solid evidence. Until then, your comment is useless and, moreover, defamatory.

    • publiusnj

      Gay rights is the fault of the Vatican? This is just one more example of the Circular firing squad. Preposterous, and unworthy of further discussion.

      The real fault lies with our politicians and judges, including the Republicans who have sat in silence as the people’s 32 referenda rejecting Gay Marriage and an overwhelming vote of the US Congress that passed DOMA has been ignored in favor of the Gay Rights Agenda.

      • So you are wed to the notion that, with sufficient numbers, Congress may enact legislation that is unconstitutional? Tell me. Does that require a three-fifths or a three-fourths majority?

        • publiusnj

          The Supreme Court’s asserted unconstitutionality was that the DOMA Congress shouldn’t have been passing laws on marriage; the states should. Then to get around the fact that the People of the State of California had tossed out the 9th Circuit’s lawmaking on Gay Marriage and that of the CA Legislature in its Prop 8 vote, the Supreme Court had to come up with an entirely non-constitutional basis to affirm the 9th Circuit. So, it invented a standing analysis that said that only public office holders could defend the Prop 8 law-making, not the sponsors of the referendum. Because Arnold Schwarzenegger was a faithless servant, the People’s vote could be ignored. So much for manipulation of the Will of the People on an isue that rested fully within their power…supposedly.

          • No offense but, regarding Windsor, that is not at all what the Court concluded. Moreover, with respect to Prop 8, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit with respect to Article III standing which, by the way, was Judge Walker’s concern.

            • publiusnj

              Of course they reversed the 9th Circuit on that question. In that way, they were able to make both the DOMA ruling (which was as I stated) and knock out Prop 8. No offense here either….

        • DE-173

          Unconstitutional = irritates a lifetime appointed bureaucrat and affirmed by 5 of 9.
          Right we’re all supposed to live by the edicts of 5 of 9, because they wear robes.
          What makes the judgment of 9 smarter than 535?

      • jc

        Guess what? Non-Catholics are not obligated to accept your archaic ideas which run counter to the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution. How about a referendum on slavery; you down with that too? Idiot

        • R. K. Ich

          “archaic ideas” — how ironic. Leftists uphold the most archaic idea of them all: destroy the young for the sake of the pleasure of those in power. The Western Holocaust worked out in the abortuaries across our land mirrors this wonderfully. The Father of Lies was a murderer from the beginning. Don’t like God, His Son, or His rules? Kill the seed, destroy the progeny. “We will not have this Man rule over us.”

          Sir, the heinousness of slavery has nothing on the horrific programme you are advocating. Forced labor was largely discriminatory: the “liberals” on the other hand are equal opportunity destroyers of humanity. Slavery can be transcended based on objective principles; godless leftism, when consistent, has no such hope of reform.

        • GG

          Vice is not a right.

        • publiusnj

          The 32 referenda were passed primarily in states where Catholics did not constitute a majority, so non-Catholics were thinking just the same way as the Catholic Church on the issue. Indeed, up until a couple of years ago, so did non-Catholics Hillary Clinton, Bill and Barack Hussein Obama, and the US Congress that passed DOMA.

        • Asmondius

          Homosexual practices are much more archaic than Christianity.

          How about a referendum on pederasty?

    • SammySeattle

      I doubt that your holy communion would be distributed in Mr. Anderson’s non-Catholic church.

      • DE-173

        You have yellow eyes, Scat Farkus.

  • Jamie

    Is chivalry dead among gay men? I wonder if the claims of chivalry toward women are tied to reverence for her motherhood, possible motherhood, wifehood–belonging to another man, or to YOU as a man. If those things are gone, it appears, all courtesy is gone too.

    • TERRY

      How can chivalry be ‘dead’ if it never was alive?

      • Fred

        Amen to that.

  • Daniel P

    As a man married to a woman but also attracted to men, this story makes me very upset. So he marries her, has kids, divorces her for another man, and then has the gall to ask for (even partial) custody?

    This whole story smacks of the common cultural understanding that everyone else is capable of making commitments, but gays and lesbians are not. They are somehow uniquely incapable of being held to their commitments, in any form whatsoever. All to often, people in the gay rights bandwagon act like people like myself can’t be morally decent people until we “find ourselves” — preferably in the bed of another man. And we can’t be blamed for the damage we incur on others by “finding ourselves”.

    It’s really bizarre, and very sad.

    • Fred

      Whose definition of morally decent are you describing, a society that makes it up as it goes along, or God’s? I know many believe as you do that as long as you “do no harm”, smile and wave, plant a tree and act nice that’s all that matters. Sodomy is a sin, it’s about that black and white, and there’s is no distinction when talking about lifestyle choices. In the sexual realm it’s no more or less a sin than spouses who commit adultery, or spend all day looking at pornography. Yes, people have strong attractions and addictions to those too, and many overcome with the grace of God.

      • Daniel P

        Did you read what I wrote? You are completely misunderstanding me.

        I agree that: (1) Sodomy is a sin, (2) adultery is a sin, (3) pornography is a sin. Abandoning your family is also a serious sin.

        What exactly are you criticizing me for?

        • Fred

          Then perhaps I read something more into your words that wasn’t intended, and for that I apologize. I’m glad we agree on the issues of the sinful behavior, including abandoning one’s family as you added.

      • joe ho

        lol. you seem to have forgotten that “god” is only a hypothesis and a very stupid one at that.

    • Paul

      Homosexuals can be committed to each other but not to the betterment of their children as in the case stated above. For the sake of the children, every child needs a stable and balance upbringing which means in a loving relationaship between a man & a woman as mother & father – this is the ideal way of raising children. In a homosexual relationship (with children) this cannot be the case.

      • Daniel P

        I was not writing about homosexuals being committed to each other. I was talking about their capacity to make commitments, whether to men or women, and to keep their commitments. You, like Fred, seem to have misunderstood what I said.

      • DE-173

        “Homosexuals can be committed to each other ”
        You mean co-dependent.

      • Homosexuals can be committed to each other but not to the betterment of their children as in the case stated above.

        Rubbish. Every study of gay couple parenting has concluded that their children are as secure, happy and successful as their peers. That requires commitment.

        • cestusdei

          No, not every study.

          • Patrick

            Yeah, can’t forget the ones bought and paid for by the anti-gay movement, like the Mark Regnerus study.

            • DE-173

              Anti-gay = questioning the militant homosexual movement.

            • Asmondius

              Like the ones paid for by homosexual interests?

              • Patrick

                Which specific peer-reviewed studies on gay parenting would those be? What pro-gay group funded them?
                Mark Regnerus received about $700,000 from the Witherspoon Institute, a group expressly opposed to gay rights, for his infamous study. Now you go.

                • Asmondius

                  Pick any one you like.

                  • Patrick

                    Do you even know any of them, or are you just going off your own prejudice? I can back up my claim. Can you?

                    • Asmondius

                      I asked you to pick one, and you choked.

                    • Patrick

                      OK. Simon Crouch’s work at the University of Melbourne.

                    • Asmondius

                      Well, Crouch’s funding appears to be nonbiased because his work was conducted while he was earning his PHD, making him eligible for general academic grants in his field through the university. Although two of these are from private foundations they are not visibly linked to any particular agenda other than altruism.

                      But the weaknesses within his work are the same type of problems that taint every previous study of same sex ‘parenting’ – participants volunteer, results are reported independently by the ‘parents’, the great majority of participants are females, the definition of a ‘same sex household’ is unclear.

                      Additionally, Crouch himself is a homosexual cohabitating with another man and two children. Two of the other four members of the research team are lesbians raising children, one of whom founded the ‘Lesbian Parenting Network’. Crouch is also a founding member of the Australian Equality Party, which is seeking to legalize same sex unions and adoption throughout Australia. As he himself stated:

                      ‘The issue of adoption has risen to the fore in Victoria as we move towards a state election. Current state legislation does not allow same-sex couples to access adoption and as a result many same-sex families live with a degree of insecurity over parenting rights. ‘

                      Thus a long time homosexual advocate asks other homosexuals for feedback on their kids and finds positives with homosexual parenting just prior to possible changes in the legal and political landscape – not very surprising.

                      Finally, to be fair to Crouch not all of his findings cast a positive light:

                      ‘In spite of doing well, many children did experience stigma, which was linked to lower scores on a number of scales.’

                      What is an example of ‘stigma’ to Crouch? A letter sent home addressed to ‘Mr. and Mrs’.

                    • Patrick

                      So we agree that Crouch’s work is reasonably non-biased, especially compared to Regnerus’s paper. Considering that the latter was funded by, consulted on, reviewed, and pubished by a journal edited by the same person, a director for an explicitly anti-gay group, Regnerus’s “study” is about as biased as you can get.

                      I’m not getting into a discussion on methodology. I’d be here all night ranting on Regnerus’s flaws, the biggest being he didn’t actually study same-sex parents.

                    • Asmondius

                      No, you are being deliberately dishonest. I said his ‘funding’ is reasonably non-biased. Period. His ‘work’ is problematic given his history of advocacy for same sex unions and parenting in addition to the obvious flaws in his approach.

                      But we need not argue over competing studies, all we need is just a wee bit o’ logic. The only way that two men can raise a child just as well or better than a man and a woman, given equivalent circumstances, is if mothers are indeed irrelevant. Are you willing to make that case?

                    • Patrick

                      We could argue about studies for quite some time if we were so inclined, but I’d rather not. Not that there really are any others on your side.

                      With regards to your other question, I disagree with your conclusion that two men raising a child equally well is only logically possible if mothers are irrelevant. I contend that the individual parent is more important than their gender. It’s hardly unheard of for opposite-sex parents to switch traditional gender rolls in some matters, be it caregiver, breadwinner, homemaker, disciplinarian, etc. I contend that same-sex couples can use that capacity to fill both traditional rolls as well as opposite-sex couples. In fact, brain scans of gay male parents show that both the “mother” and “father” regions of their brains light up in response to their children’s voices.

                    • Asmondius

                      You’re trying to say that men and women are identical, and look very foolish doing so. As is the case for many homosexuals, you wish to pretend that gender is an accident rather than a reality for the human race simply because your predilection defies the natural order.

                    • Patrick

                      If you can’t keep from being deliberately disingenuous, I see no point in wasting any more time with this

                    • Asmondius

                      Roger, Dodger.

                    • Patrick

                      BTW, homosexuality occurs in nature, thus it is part of the natural order.

        • Austin Ruse

          There no such studies. Anything you cite will either be 1) too small 2) too short 3) selfselected or all three. Often they are studies of what homosexuals say about their children. Oh yes, junior is fine with my irregular sex life, totally well adjusted and an honor student to boot!

          The fact is there only a few million gays in the US. only a tiny sliver are interested in marriage and an even tinier sliver want children. Too few too measure in any meaningful ie scientic way. Your studies are ideological garbage.

        • Asmondius

          In order for that to be true, one or both of the sexes of which humanity consists would have to be irrelevant.

  • grzybowskib

    Scott Rose has been “conversing” with Ryan Anderson on Twitter too, with tons of profanity and a few death threats. You’d think it would get exhausting to be that angry and hateful all the time. But so far it hasn’t happened yet. :/

    • And I condemned that “conversing” (https://twitter.com/goodasyou/status/519637113730371584), garnering thanks from Ryan and a number of conservatives. Yet Mr. Ruse continues to try to connect me to Mr. Rose. It’s a politically motivated attempt to smear me by connecting me to actions that are not even close to my own

      • grzybowskib

        I see that, and I thank you for it. I can’t really say anything about you because I don’t know what else you’ve done besides what you’ve just told me. It’s just Scott Rose’s vitriol that I found disturbing. Glad we have that in common.

      • You didn’t remove doxing in the comments on your site.

        • I don’t remove anything in the comments of my site, pro-gay, anti-gay, or anywhere in between. I run an open commenting forum and only jump in if I absolutely must. I value the free and mostly unfettered exchange of ideas

          But you cannot connect comments to a site writer/owner. There is legal precedent that speaks to this.

          • You are probably right that you are not legally liable. However, it is ethically questionable to permit comments that violate privacy and facilitate harrassment and bullying by revealing personal information (“doxxing”).

            Sites like Reddit also give a wide berth for free discussion, but do draw a line on publicizing personal information that is likely to lead to harrassment or intimidation. See their policy on that here: https://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq#wiki_is_posting_personal_information_ok.3F

            If you wish to be taken seriously as someone who opposes online harassment, then I would suggest you adopt a similar moderation policy. Otherwise, you morally implicate yourself in such campaigns, although I grant you are not technically breaking the law.

          • Austin Ruse

            But we can call it immoral.

    • Well, Scott is over-the-top at times. I have had to delete a couple of comments and as someone who is the victim of violence (I was shot) I am particularly sensitive to threats. The gay, community is, and has been, overwhelmingly non-violent.

      • DE-173

        Modern fascists use friendly judges.

      • Asmondius

        Not to each other.

    • StraightGrandmother

  • Fred

    I just finished eating and now I’m fighting to keep from vomiting, thanks Austin for this disturbing article. I don’t know who I’m more angry at, but the judge is clearly in the forefront of my rage. He was going to right all wrongs on her back, and would have given him more if he asked. This man should be removed from the bench immediately, but I’m not holding my breath. Satan’s grip on our society grows stronger every day it would seem, it’s high time we recognize and stop pandering to and enabling him through inaction.

    • Fred

      My heart aches and I pray for Janna and her children that this dark moment doesn’t destroy her faith in the Lord. I know I should, but I have a hard time praying for those possessed who commit these evil acts and who should exorcised. What an appropriate tie into today’s Gospel from Luke, “by the power Beelzebul, the prince of demons, he drives out demons”. His grace is surly needed now.

  • Guest_august

    “The few gay bullyboys are going to do great damage to women, children
    and society before they are done. The only ones to hold them off are the
    more sensible of the LGBT movement. Where are they? They should step in
    now to defend these two women who have come under vicious attack.”
    .
    Sorry, Mr. Ruse, there are no sensible LGBT activists. In as much as they promote, condone, or legitimize same-sex sex acts,they are all headed for a very unpleasant place, unless they repent as soon as possible: that is what the Good Book says.

    • joe ho

      lol. bible babble. stop claiming to know things you don’t know. it’s disgusting.

  • Watosh

    Well we now know how Sodom and Gomorrah became Sodom and Gomorrah.

    • Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49, KJV)

  • Cathy

    Years ago, LGBT activists claimed, “whatever we do in our own homes is our own business.” Now a tiny minority of activists has made “same sex marriage” everyone’s business, even to the point of suing wedding photographers, florists, bakers, dress retailers and reception venue owners for disagreeing to participate in a homosexual “marriage” celebration. They are already coming after Catholic Schools, and all churches who refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies will be targeted for violating “civil rights.” How often do people who disagree over issues such as global warming, taxes, etc. call their opponents “haters” and “bigots?” The tolerance homosexual activists sought has absolutely turned into bullying – how sad for families, those of us who must pick up the pieces, but also for those who live in bondage to homosexuality. May God help us all!

    • jc

      My relationship does private” when my colleagues take off their wedding rings, remove pictures of their spouses and kids, and stop taking time off to attend public weddings. Or are you just a hypocrite about “privacy”?

      • DE-173

        Your “relationship” isn’t the same as a marriage.

        I think if women ever start realizing that the Scat Farkus’ of the world make the excretory canal the equivalent of the birth canal, the Scat Farkus’ of the world will have the hell to pay of wmen scorned.

        • Sweet63

          never happen as long as women are too grossed out to think about it

      • Anthony Zarrella

        Public tokens of a private life are not the same as compulsory public acquiescence in that private life.

        Think about the difference between a bumper sticker that says, “I’d Rather Be Gambling” with a picture in the rear window of a the guy throwing craps, and being told that you *must* teach your children that gambling is a wonderful thing and that speaking out against gambling will not be tolerated (on pain of losing your job and possibly being fined or sued).

        In the first case, you’re “forced” to be made aware of what the guy does in his private life (i.e. plays craps) whether you approve or not. In the latter case, you’re being forced to *support* what he does in his private life, even if you think it’s morally wrong (as some do think about gambling).

        Your talk of wedding rings and family pictures is the first case. The lawsuits against wedding contractors and the targeting of people like Brendan Eich is the latter case.

        • Tom

          In the case of Brendan Eich, a more accurate analogy would be that if he worked for an anti-gambling organisation, and was found to have donated to a casino building project, and then been fired. Certainly perhaps an over reaction, but hardly “forcing” someone to reject gambling, just realising such activity is inappropriate for someone who is supposed to be anti.

          That is without even getting into all the people fired by Catholic organisations for being gay/acting contrary to church teachings etc. Suffice to say, more people have been fired for not adhering to Catholic doctrine than have been fired for not supporting same sex marriage.

          • Augustus

            What made the Brendan Eich story stand out was that he was fired from his own company, or at least one he co-founded, because of a private opinion that had nothing to do with the company. That’s scary. (Think “thought crime.”) And I seriously doubt there was a corporate policy explicitly favoring so-called gay marriage. You can’t compare that to Catholic schools whose teaching about marriage is quite explicit. In those cases, the people who were fired were teachers who actually had gay partners and often publicized the fact by announcing their “marriage.” You can’t be a role model if you are living in sin, or worse, openly defying Church teaching. It’s not the same as privately donating $1000 to a political cause.

            • Tom

              Well, he wasn’t fired, he resigned. He wasn’t penalised for a private opinion or thought, but for supporting a political campaign, an “action”, just like contracting a marriage. The company had a politically correct ethos embracing equality.

              Ironically, of course, you are actually making the case for companies to write explicit support of same sex marriage into their codes of conduct in order to render firing someone for opposing that view acceptable.

              In anycase, it is irrelevant to the point of whether firing someone for not acting in accordance with how a company would like counts as ” forcing ” someone to accept something. It is totally unimportant to whether a view or opinion is being forced on someone whether that view is explicitly stated in company charters. The simple matter is Brendan Eich left the company over outrage at what was perceived as unacceptable activity – in that sense it is identical to the case of gay people fired from Catholic organisations. Now, you can say that it is acceptable for a Catholic organisation to “force” its employee’s to share its ethos, and try to show why similarly forcing Catholics in politically correct companies to share their ethos is morally different, but dont be silly and argue that they are not engaging in the same kind of ideological cleansing.

              • Augustus

                That a computer company would mandate that everyone–including its CEO and founder–should share the same political ideology as a requirement for employment should frighten you. Now gays will require every employee to vote for the same candidates and donate to the same causes? That’s intolerance on steroids. Catholic employers don’t do that. Eich resigned to avoid being canned. I’m sure there was a settlement of some kind. But it’s the same thing: ideological conformity or else. (Eich didn’t announce his donation. It was leaked by a rival software company [OkCupid]–whose CEO [Ironically] once donated to a Utah congressman who opposed gay causes. According to the LA Times, over 6,000 people gave over $1000 to Prop. 8. Should they all be fired now?) I can imagine Planned Parenthood hiring pro-abortion employees because that’s what they do. But a software company requiring intellectual uniformity on politics? Be careful what you wish for. This is the true face of liberalism: fascism.

                • Tom

                  Really, you don’t think Catholic organisations would look unfavourably on employees who voted for the pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage candidate? Curious. Or even, a Catholic organisation would have no problem employing someone who donated to a pro-abortion amendment, and who has not disavowed that position? I think you are being disingenuous.

                  And you are demanding ideological conformity in organisations with a Catholic ethos, not merely explicitly religious ones. Or are you saying an outspoken, divorced, atheist would be welcomed to teach at a Catholic school?

                  I have no problem at all with free associations enforcing ideological conformity – it is the root of freedom of association. I may strongly disagree with the ideology they choose to enforce, but that is a secondary matter. Indeed, from your omission, I take it you do not have a problem requiring (“forcing”) people to share a particular ideology to work for a company, you just excuse it for certain organisations. You may find it sinister, but I find it no less “sinister” that World Vision will sack its employees for entering same sex marriages, even though it is primarily focussed on helping children.

                  • redfish

                    “Or even, a Catholic organisation would have no problem employing someone who donated to a pro-abortion amendment, and who has not disavowed that position?”

                    They shouldn’t, if what you’re talking about is a software business such as making web browser. The idea that pro-choice people shouldn’t participate in making a web browser is ridiculous on its face. But part of the goal of a Catholic school is to impart Catholic teaching, which includes with it certain things with it.

                    What would you compare Mozilla to? If some LGBT-rights organization fired someone for contributing to Prop 8, that’s entirely their business to fire them, and I doubt anyone complain. But the idea that Mozilla was an LGBT-rights organization just because part of their corporate ethos was “equality” is ridiculous. That’s similar to someone founding a “Catholic browser company” and putting “family” in their ethos, and firing people for being in a gay relationship. Basically, saying that people in a gay relationship can’t make a web browser.

                    I really wonder what your view on Hobby Lobby is, since you haven’t spoken about it.

                    I also wonder what your view about ballot box secrecy is. To me the secrecy of the ballot box is one of the most important rights in modern democracies. And supporting a campaign through private means isn’t much different than voting.

                    • Tom

                      Ha! What you have done is effectively ruled out any form of corporate ethos that employees must adhere to. Personally, I look forward to seeing the CEO of Microsoft being an avowed member of the Klan at the weekend, and that not be an issue for the company. And I don’t really see how your example does not embrace World Vision. I see no reason why a company cannot have a vision of the world that it requires its employees to support.

                      I don’t see how someone can support Hobby Lobby, as a corporate entity with religious beliefs, and not also admit that those entities can have employment criteria that requires conformity to ideology.

                      //But part of the goal of a Catholic school is to impart Catholic teaching, which includes with it certain things with it.//

                      So let us state it in terms we are discussing: you think it is acceptable to force someone to adhere to an ideology in their employment if you deem their employment to require it. So, the issue becomes not one of discussing the rightness or wrongness of forcing a Catholic to reject their beliefs, but whether such force is justified. We agree what kind of woman you are, now we are just haggling over price. I am curious about how a choir director, who has served well as director of a choir, but has entered a same sex marriage, suddenly becomes a not good choir director?

                      Yes, supporting a campaign by donating is very different from voting. It is certainly an activity subject to moral debate, and condemnation if found to be wrong.

                    • redfish

                      No I haven’t ruled out any corporate ethos. If a company cares about the environment, its fine if that’s reflected in its business practices, since production is part of the business and they have to decide how to do it. Its also fair for a company to believe equality in employment practices. If someone is a member of the KKK and that in practice means they believe in things like burning crosses in front of black people’s lawns to drive them away from white areas, then its probably going to be obvious what is view towards black employees is and his KKK membership wouldn’t even have to be disclosed in the first place, because it would show every day in how he does his business with black people.

                      But its obvious that Brendan Eich’s views towards gay employees is nothing like you’re implying, and that he was committed to treating them like anyone else, and in giving them spousal benefits if they were in a relationship. And I think most Americans know this, and why most Americans, including most many progressives and liberals, did not look kindly on his firing. The only people who believe that Eich would have been a problem for gay employees are ideologues who, honestly, I find uncharitable hypocrites. Honestly, if the board decided not to pressure him out, I don’t think most Mozilla employees or contributors would have cared a bit, or think it violated any ethos of equality. Because most people aren’t ideologues.

                      As for Hobby Lobby: its pretty simple. They aren’t imposing anything on their employees, they’re the ones arranging the health plan; what some people want is for the employees to be able to impose something on the employer. I mean, hopefully, an employee will be able to opt out and use his or her salary to pay for their own health plan. But employees shouldn’t be entitled, imo anyway, to demand their employer to arrange a certain type of group coverage.

                      And basically you’d also think it wouldn’t interfere with a priests job as long as he did the job, even if it made him a hypocrite? The purpose of a choir isn’t to produce pretty music. But as far as I’m aware, its also an explicit understanding when someone applies for certain jobs, and not just a vague unstated understanding in the contract. I’m pretty open if people want to form religious schools that are progressive leaning and they want people hired there that represent the spiritual beliefs, and make that clear on contracting for employment. When the entire purpose of being for an organization is religious, I don’t quite see that as being the same thing as a commercial enterprise. Personally I believe in being charitable in this area too and I don’t think there should necessarily be a problem with hiring people with different beliefs into religious employment. But I also realize its a different thing than a commercial enterprise.

                    • Tom

                      There is nothing about being a member of the Klan that means that one is not a good programmer or CEO. In theory it is perfectly possible for a member of the KKK to be a good CEO. Their views about black employees are private. Yet I still think it is appropriate to fire said employee, even if their behaviour in company has been fine.

                      But if Hobby Lobby can have it’s conscience violated by providing abortifacients, then I see no reason why it can’t be a violation of their conscience to employ racists or sexists or same sex married employees.

                      So effectively you are saying a company whose corporate ethos is dedicated to environmentalism should have to employ a CEO who donates to fracking lobbying! Lol.

                      And if World Vision can sack employees for entering same sex marriages, then Mozilla can get rid of (even though they didn’t) someone who opposes same sex marriage. Corporations can and do have moral and ideological goals. Commercial entities can and do have spiritual goals. You can disagree with them, but there is no inherent difference between being a Catholic school, or World Vision, and Mozilla. Or are you saying that companies should not have any ideological goals that they wish to transmit?

                    • redfish

                      They can do whatever they want, but if they’re doing it in an intolerant way, I’ll say that. Firing someone when their beliefs don’t interfere with their job is intolerant to me. Not arranging a certain group health care coverage for the company’s employees is not intolerant and not pushing anything on anyone. Its similar to not choosing to serve meat in the company cafeteria because the owner is a vegetarian, or not choosing to serve pork because the owner is a kosher Jew. It doesn’t exclude anyone: its inclusive.

                      Theory is theory and practice is practice.

                      Is part of World Vision’s goal evangelization? If not, then I don’t think they should have that policy either. I never said I agree with all Christian groups on this.

                    • Tom

                      //Is part of World Vision’s goal evangelization? //

                      As much as Mozilla’s goal is evangelising for pro-gay causes.

                      Arguably a company that served no vegetarian options in the cafeteria would be excluding vegetarians.

                      PS: I am not arguing in favour of Mozilla’s actions, just taking issue with the double standard applied to pro-gay organisations vs Catholic organisations.

                    • Michael Jones

                      Really so Mozilla is evangelising ?
                      Have they said so EVER! no ? well I guess that theory is out the window. In fact if it was no longer popular to support gay causes Mozilla would be equally in favor any and all legislation that sent them to a gas chamber because they are a corporation and they only care about being seen in a good light and making money.

                    • Michael Jones

                      This the point where I find you really didn’t have a point except to troll redfish……

                    • Michael Jones

                      If he was in his private life wouldn’t that be his business ? By what right to you have to intrude on his privacy ? No one at Hobby lobby must conform to christianity my friends have worked there for years one is Wiccan and the other is an atheist they are in upper management. Unlike your world view there is no problem. They are not required to do christian things if they give money to abortion no one cases. You care though ….. interesting you want to control what people do in their private lives but you balk when the same is applied to you rather hypocritical…….

                  • fredx2

                    it is deeply sick to defend the firing of brandon eich. to compare that to the firings of openly gay teachers at catholic schools – where the whole purpose of that organization is to teach a moral world view – not to make software – shows just how totalitarian gays are willing to be.

                  • Fargo106

                    “Really, you don’t think Catholic organisations would look unfavourably on employees (or a CEO no less!) who voted for the pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage candidate?”
                    Bad example, Tom. Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi still get communion. Hell, Pelosi even gets to meet with the Pope. Nobody kicked ’em out of anything, sent them packing, or forced them to resign.

                    • Tom

                      So does Robert Mugabe, a Catholic. It still does not mean that they are looked on favorably by the Church. And, I have seen calls for politicians who vote in favor of abortion to be blocked from receiving communion. Indeed, such blocking would be entirely in accordance with Catholic ideology. I did also say “Catholic organisations” which does not limit it to the Church. I remember the controversy caused when Obama was invited to deliver a speech at Notre Dame University. Do you think that Obama should be excluded from speaking at Notre Dame?

                  • Michael Jones

                    Companies may operate fascistically in a political sense however it is illegal for them to be cause being fascist to their employes Except in Eich’s case.
                    Unlike gay school teachers in catholic schools Eich was not in break of contract. They were, in fact they gleefully broke their contracts and rubbed the resulting breach in the other contracting parties faces. That is just dumb to anyone who practices contract law.
                    If you have no problem with free associations enforcing ideological conformity then you must support ISlamic terrorist they are especially fond of such conformity.
                    Legally you cannot be made to conform mentally (yet) the law strictly even prohibits mind control or attempts. You see ripe for your new fascist government, one thing you do know that after they cement power they always kill the gays right ? Well germany actually only killed the feminine gays. They were quite fond of the macho ones, as was soviet Russia. People with common sense find this types of behaviors disturbing because they are young enough to remember the cold war and the last remnants of the second world war.

                  • Pittsburghgal 53

                    Tom- the heart of this debate is based on God’s morality. Your frame of reference clearly infers that not share that philosophy, therefore your argument is irrelevant. Homosexuality is a perversion of God’s intended plan for sexual companionship, procreation, and community. While you can argue using heterosexuals’ many sins and hypocracies, the fact is that homosexuality is an abomination and a perversion of the natural.

              • Asmondius

                Equating expression of opinion on a topic with a ‘marriage’ is nonsense.

          • The Beekeeper

            Your analogy is incorrect. Mozilla had no such ethos as you are claiming. If anything it could be argued that, since Eich was a co-founder, Mozilla was inclined to support traditional marriage. Mozilla coordinates a global community of open source developers, some of them in India and the Middle East where views on marriage are very traditional. Do you imagine that all of them are required to support same sex marriage to work with Mozilla? If not, then why was Eich forced to resign? Whether you like it or not, his is a classic case of the bullyboys at work.

            • Tom

              I am sure that Mozilla had an ethos centred around equality etc, which can easily be interpreted as requiring a pro-ssm viewpoint. It was so viewed by a large number of people.

              The viewpoints and actions of the CEO of a company is subject to rather higher scrutiny and publicity than a shopfloor worker. It may be acceptable for a low level worker to donate to a pro-fracking cause while working for a company that has an environmentalist ethos, but I would say it would be less so for the CEO.

              And, as I said above, it is largely irrelevant whether it was explicitly stated by Mozilla. Where does the “bullying” attach? Is forcing someone to act according to an organisation’s ethos “bullying”? As I argue above, surely not. And, if it is, then Catholic organisations ” bully” their staff into adhering to their ideology.

              • Anthony Zarrella

                The key difference, Tom, is that when a Catholic organization fires someone for deviating from Catholic teachings in a public way, their commitment to promoting Catholic teachings is not merely part of their “corporate ethos” but rather part of their reason for existing in the first place.

                A Catholic school’s *entire mission* is to educate students with *Catholic* values. Mozilla’s entire mission is to produce and sell software.

                When a person (any person) signs up to work with a Catholic school, they are (or at least ought to be) well aware that adhering to Catholic doctrine (or *at least* not openly opposing it) is a condition of their employment. How good they are at modeling Catholic values has a direct impact on how fit they are for the purpose for which they were hired.

                When Brendan Eich signed on with (or co-founded!) Mozilla, I highly doubt he was made aware that support for same-sex “marriage” was a job requirement. His support for Prop. 8 (silent, financial support, at that – hardly shouting from the rooftops) had no impact on his fitness for the work he was paid to do.

                Besides, think about the real implications of your argument. If it is true that an organization can fire anyone, simply for giving public support to a cause the organization disfavors (regardless of whether the organization’s core purpose relates to that controversy at all), then it should be *entirely unobjectionable* for someone opposed to illegal immigration to refuse to hire anyone who ever publicly supported amnesty, or someone who is a fundamentalist Christian to refuse to hire any non-Christian (even if his business is an online art supply retailer with no overt religious overtones). They can just say that it’s “part of the company ethos.”

                Except, no, they can’t. Any employer who tried that would be hit with discrimination lawsuits and pilloried in the media. So, what you’re advocating is basically the *opposite* double standard – that liberal progressive causes can be integrated into the “company ethos” and therefore form valid grounds to fire someone (or force them to resign), but doing the same with a conservative “ethos” would be legally prohibited.

                • Tom

                  So, a Catholic school is allowed to “force” its employees to adhere to Catholic teaching, but a secular organisation with a “pro-gay” ethos is not allowed to force that ideology on its employees? Your problem is not with the notion of “forcing” someone to adopt an ideology to work work for an organisation, your problem is what and when it is forced – whether the “forcing” is justified by what you perceive as the mission of the organisation. It is therefore dishonest of you to portray your objection to Eich’s leaving of the company as being based on the notion he was “forced” to adhere to an ideology he did not agree with, since you would not do the same for a gay person fired from a Catholic based organisation for not adhering to that ideology.

                  //Mozilla’s entire mission is to produce and sell software.//

                  Well, that is your opinion. Hobby Lobby sells arts and crafts supplies, yet it has a religious conscience that was found to be breached by requiring the provision of abortifacients. So, it is entirely possible to be a corporation and have a vision beyond mere supply of certain goods. Many companies, for example, donate to causes they think are worthwhile, even if they are beyond the remit of their commercial activity. Mozilla was committed to the nebulous term “equality”, interpreted by many to include same-sex marriage. It therefore became subject to pressure from a number of users for being perceived to fail to live up to that standard. I fail to see why a company cannot have a mission broader than the mere commercial activities it engages in.

                  //Besides, think about the real implications of your argument.//

                  I accept the implications, and believe that it should be legal to fire anyone for rejecting or not adhering to a company ethos. I am advocating for no double standard. If a conservative company wishes to have a mandatory conservative ethos, then let it. You, however, are advocating for a double standard, whereby organisations whose ethos is “religious” can fire based upon their ideology.

                  And talk about being pilloried by the media – that is exactly what happened to World Vision by the Christian media when it decided (briefly) to allow people in same-sex marriages to work for them. Social pressure works both ways, ya know?

                  • Anthony Zarrella

                    OK, well, I can at least respect the fact that your position is internally consistent and intellectually honest.

                    I still think there’s a difference between forcing employees to adhere to a *core mission* of an organization and forcing them to adhere to a mere “ethos.” (For instance, if it were GLAAD firing Brendan Eich, I’d have no objection at all, and if Hobby Lobby fired an employee simply for being gay on his own time, I’d have a problem with that)

                    As to your point about the Hobby Lobby case itself (and corporate donations to ideological causes), I’d say it’s a distinction between what *the company itself* does (refuse to pay for contraception, or donate to a cause out of its own coffers) and what it insists on *its employees* doing (e.g. forbidding all employees from *using* contraception, or demanding that *they* donate to a particular cause out of their own paychecks). The former is an appropriate instantiation of the “corporate ethos” because it’s the company making a commitment to have the company act a certain way. The latter is (in my view) unacceptable unless the principle involved is part of the company’s actual business (e.g. a Catholic school’s job is to teach students Catholic values, and GLAAD’s job is to promote gay interests… but Mozilla’s job is to develop software, and Hobby Lobby’s job is to sell craft supplies).

                    Anyway, it’s clear that we have a fundamental difference of initial premises, so I think we’ll have to just agree to disagree. I find your views to be incorrect, but rational and held in good faith. I’ll be satisfied if I’ve convinced you of the same, with respect to my views.

                    [P.S. Just as a clarification, I’m not proposing a relativist worldview in which we’re both “equally right.” I’m suggesting that only one of us can be right, but that neither of us is taking a position that is demonstrably irrational or disingenuous, so we might as well not fight over it 😉 ]

                    • Tom

                      //Anyway, it’s clear that we have a fundamental difference of initial premises, so I think we’ll have to just agree to disagree. I find your views to be incorrect, but rational and held in good faith. I’ll be satisfied if I’ve convinced you of the same, with respect to my views.//

                      I could do that, but for the fact that you seem above to be having a problem with Eich being “forced” to adhere to an ideology he does not accept. My point is that it is *not*, of itself, that Eich was “forced” to adhere to an ideology he did not agree with, because you see no problem with that in the case of Catholic organisations, but that you have the opinion that Mozilla’s commercial activities did not require them to force him to adhere to it. I would also point out that the CEO of a company is subject to rather higher scrutiny than a shopfloor worker. As mentioned in above comments, a company that has environmentalism as one of its corporate ethoses might tolerate a shopfloor worker donating to a pro-fracking cause, but to have it be public knowledge that the CEO donated to a pro-fracking campaign would be unacceptable. A CEO is supposed to not only direct, but embody the values, and ethos, of an organisation. This would answer what I think is the false distinction you make between “a company” and its CEO. The CEO, certainly in big tech companies (think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates etc) is the public face of that organisation.

                      And, again, I would argue that if World Vision’s “core mission” of helping children in poor nations is incompatible with employing people in same-sex marriages, then it can be incompatible for Eich to be employed by a tech company. Do you support World Vision’s decision to not employ people in same-sex marriages?

                      PS: I am not arguing for no judgement of an organisation based on what it choose to be its corporate ethos. For example, I think that a company should be able to have as a core ethos the propagation and continuation of pure racial lines, and fire anyone who contracts a mixed-race marriage, but I would certainly condemn a company that had that policy. Likewise, I actually think that forcing Eich out was an unethical mistake. As you can probably tell, my main irritation is the double standard applied by certain Christians.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      You make a good point about the CEO being subject to stricter scrutiny. If Eich had been a CEO hired by the company from the outside, I’d probably agree with you. However, since Eich was a co-founder, I think it’s a bit different.

                      I strongly doubt that when he helped to create the company, and created it with this ethos of “equality” that you mention, that he believed that “equality” *necessarily* included support for gay “marriage.”

                      In other words, what happened here is that one of the guys who helped to *make* the company was forced to resign because of public pressure to force the company to interpret its “equality” ideal in a way that *its founder* clearly never intended.

                      As far as World Vision, charities are a bit different than for-profit corporations. *Not* in any legal sense (I agree with the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision) but in the sense that a charity is almost always formed to serve some need *because of* some motivating moral principle. World Vision doesn’t help children in poor nations “just ‘cuz”. They do it *expressly* on basis of their commitment to Christian principles. Their Christian nature is not an “add-on” to their work, it is the *reason* for their work.

                      I doubt Mozilla, on the other hand, could say that the whole reason they’re in the software business is “to promote equality.” On the other hand, if there were a children’s charity that was formed with the explicit aim (though not necessarily the exclusive aim) of providing an “accepting and affirming” home for gay youths who were cast out by their families (which, by the way, I think is an abhorrent thing for a family to do), then I’d think it would be perfectly consistent for them to fire any employee who wasn’t pro-gay.

                      Lastly, the way a company committed to racial equality enacts that ethos in hiring is to hire people of all races on equal terms. I agree that they’d be justified in firing a KKK member, but only because the KKK is so toxic and openly offensive that it would be virtually impossible for such an employee to coexist peacefully with minority co-workers (and if Brendan Eich were a Westboro Baptist, I’d be applauding his ouster for the same reasons). On the other hand, if such a company decided to can a worker simply for donating to an anti-affirmative-action cause, I’d have the same objections.

                      The problem is that some elements (a vocal minority, I suspect) of the gay lobby have come to the conclusion that it simply isn’t possible to oppose gay “marriage” without being exactly the same sort of vicious, foaming-at-the-mouth bigot as a Klansman. The idea that someone could have perfect respect for gays as individuals, and yet oppose their collective policy preferences, is one that has been (wrongly, I think) deemed non-credible.

                      Also, by the way, I do agree that it is perfectly appropriate to condemn a company whose policies (whether practical or philosophical) are abhorrent to you. I also agree that, in the face of public and possibly economic pressure, it was probably perfectly *legal* for Mozilla to force Eich out (since I assume his contractual rights were respected). I simply think (as you say) that it was unethical – precisely *because* Eich was never put on notice that he was expected to “toe the line” on gay “marriage” and because nothing about his personal stance on the issue was counter to his duties to the company.

                    • Tom

                      //I strongly doubt that when he helped to create the company, and created it with this ethos of “equality” that you mention, that he believed that “equality” *necessarily* included support for gay “marriage.”//

                      But the point is that the general understanding of “equality” evolved towards including same-sex marriage. In that respect, it is not really relevant what Eich intended when (if?) he included equality in the company’s founding ethos. So, again, we come back to the point that at the time Mozilla was seeking to employ Eich as its CEO, “equality” as understood at the time included support for same-sex marriage, and as CEO of Mozilla Eich would have to embody those values, which he couldn’t do having supported Prop 8. For example, if a company was founded with the ethos of “healthy living” at a time when smoking was considered good for one’s health, and it now tried to employ as CEO a founding member who donated to a pro-smoking initiative, and who hadn’t repudiated that association (which Eich did not do with regard to his opposition to SSM), then I think it would be perfectly reasonable to reconsider their appointment. Now, had the person said “at the time I made that donation I was under the mistaken belief that smoking was good for one’s health, and I now know better” then there might be a very good case for maintaining their employment. However, Eich did not give that form of apology wrt his support for Prop 8.

                      //As far as World Vision, charities are a bit different than for-profit corporations.//

                      But again, that highlights the fact you do not actually think it is wrong, of itself, to *force* employees to act in accordance with the ethos of an organisation. What we are quibbling over is when you think it is just to force employees to adhere to an ideology they don’t subscribe to. That is a far more subtle point than the one you are making in the comment I first replied to. Now, granted you aren’t saying it is wrong to force someone to adhere to ideology they don’t agree with, but I am inferring that judgement in there. Perhaps I am wrong to do so? Personally, I don’t think such an action can be called “force” in a moral sense, so much as a “requirement”. I am “forced” to wear trousers to work, despite the fact it would be more comfortable to just do in underwear.

                      As you rightly note in one of your other comments:
                      //”Does a private university lose its right to have an institutional identity or conscience merely because it is not formally associated with a particular religion?” I’d say not.//

                      Now, I see no reason why a university is morally or ethically distinct from any other organisation, so think the question can be universalised as:

                      “Does a private organisation lose its right to have an institutional identity or conscience merely because it is not formally associated with a particular religion?”

                      If the institutional identity or conscience of Mozilla was heavily informed by “openness”, “inclusiveness”, “equality” and all those other buzzwords that are so wonderfully fluid as to mean little, and yet are interpreted to mean very specific things day to day, it seems reasonable to say that Eich’s continued employment could have been legitimately perceived as being in violation of that.

                      //it simply isn’t possible to oppose gay “marriage” without being exactly the same sort of vicious, foaming-at-the-mouth bigot as a Klansman.//

                      Agreed. However, I think the two frequently go hand in hand. Example: I argued above for a company’s right to be anti-miscegenation, but I understand it is easier, and perhaps more common, for that position to be argued for by people who are racist scum. There is also a certain amount of social signalling tied to vocal opposition to SSM. If I saw a bald man with svastikas tattooed on his neck, I would probably avoid him, yet he could just be suffering the effects of chemotherapy, and be very into eastern religion.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      //For example, if a company was founded with the ethos of “healthy living” at a time when smoking was considered good for one’s health, //

                      It’s not at all the same. People used to believe smoking was healthy, but they were *factually wrong at the time*. The word “healthy” *never did* encompass tobacco use. Nothing changed except what data we had access to. Someone who still insists smoking is good for you is just plain wrong on the same level as someone who says that cutting the tail off a rat will cause it to give birth to tailless rats.

                      On the other hand, the meaning of the word “equality” has not changed, and we haven’t suddenly come into possession of new data, such that *now* we see that *clearly* equality *always* included support for same-sex “marriage.” All that has changed is people’s opinions. Someone who continues to insist that equality *does not* need to include support for SSM is certainly “going against the flow” but it’s not possible to say that they’re simply, demonstrably *wrong*.

                      It would appear (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you’re an “evolutionist” – that you believe that the language of some definitive document (whether that is a corporate charter or the Constitution) means whatever its terms mean to people *today*. I’m an originalist – I believe that the words mean what they meant when they were written, and that the meaning of the document doesn’t change unless it’s rewritten. So, if “equality” didn’t mean pro-SSM when Eich first helped to write it into Mozilla’s charter, then it doesn’t mean that now (and if it was merely, as you say below, a “buzzword” when it was originally written, then it meant basically nothing, and still does).

                      //what you are actually making the case for is for organisations to make it explicit that support for same-sex marriage is expected by employees.//

                      Yeah, that would be an improvement. I’d still find it *inappropriate* for an organization to do that unless it’s part of their core purpose, but at least letting employees know up front would be better than leaving people like Eich to take some action that they reasonably *think* will be none of their company’s business, and then find out on the back end that they have apparently violated [someone’s interpretation of] their company’s “ethos”.

                      //Now, granted you aren’t saying it is wrong to force someone to adhere to ideology they don’t agree with, but I am inferring that judgement in there. Perhaps I am wrong to do so? Personally, I don’t think such an action can be called “force” in a moral sense, so much as a “requirement”.//

                      As I said just now, if it were an explicit requirement (rather than a requirement dubiously derived from nebulous language in an aspirational corporate document), that would be better, at least. I do think it’s wrong to *force* someone to act against their own ideology, but I *also* think it’s wrong for a non-ideologically-driven company (i.e. one that exists for a primary purpose other than advancing or following a particular ideology) to make *off-hours* adherence to an ideology a condition of employment (what an employee does on *company time* is of course entirely the company’s business).

                      //Now, as far as I am aware, helping children in poor nations, even when motivated by Christian faith, does not require one to not be in a same-sex marriage.//

                      Sure, but the mission of bringing Christian witness to other nations, *in the form of* practical charitable aid, does have such a requirement. In other words, World Vision wasn’t founded “to help poor children” – it was founded to do God’s work. Employing people in same-sex relationships would appear to condone conduct that Christians believe God disapproves, and so would undermine the Christian witness of World Vision. (Note that as far as I know, WV has *no* rule, now or ever, against *providing* charity to people regardless of orientation)

                      //”Does a private organisation lose its right to have an institutional identity or conscience merely because it is not formally associated with a particular religion?”//

                      That is absolutely a permissible generalization of my question in my other post, and I agree that the answer is “No.” However, if I recall, that post was in reference to the Obamacare mandate in the Hobby Lobby case, and therefore I was still talking about actions taken *by the organization.*

                      Again, I agree that an organization can have its own “ethos” and can promote that ethos via its official acts as an organization – whether that means making donations to a certain cause, or refusing to purchase contraception. Hobby Lobby never said, “You, the employee, may not use contraception.” They just said, “We, the organization, will not buy it for you.” If they *had* tried to impose a requirement that all employees avoid contraception, they’d have been wrong to do so (since use or non-use of contraception has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby’s core purpose).

                      //If I saw a bald man with svastikas tattooed on his neck, I would probably avoid him//

                      You’re associating deliberate external signifiers with their natural meanings in modern society. Nothing wrong there. That’s because the core meaning (in modern America) of the swastika is affiliation with Nazi ideals. However, the core meaning of “I am opposed to gay marriage” is “I am opposed to gay marriage” – not “I hate gays.”

                      The anti-miscegenation comparison is specious because (to the best of my knowledge) *no one* has advanced a rationale for anti-miscegenation that *isn’t* based on the premise that one race is better than another – therefore, anti-miscegenation is *inherently* racist.

                      On the other hand, gay “marriage” opponents have advanced *plenty* of rationales that are not based on wanting to harm gays – they just get dismissed, automatically, as a mere “cover” for the “real” reason: that they hate gays.

                      For many anti-SSM people (myself included), opposition to gay “marriage” is for the same reason that I always put “marriage” in quotes in this context – because I believe that “Should gays be ‘allowed’ to marry?” is just the wrong question to ask. Rather, I think that the *nature of marriage* is such that only a man and a woman *can* possibly marry, and it’s silly to pretend that the legislature or the court can wave a magic wand and make it otherwise. How many legs does a dog have if the Supreme Court decides that a tail must be counted as a leg? Four, because a Supreme Court mandate to call a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.

                      I have *no* animus towards gays *at all* – I wish every one of them a happy life – but I’m dead set against SSM (and the overall “norming” of homosexuality – happy to elaborate if you want).

                    • Tom

                      But the word “healthy” did encompass using tobacco, in exactly the same way that the word “gravity” meant the concept as understood by Newton, prior to General Relativity. Indeed, if you are an Originalist, this was the original usage of the word in the hypothetical document we are discussing. It is what the writers had in mind – that tobacco use would be considered healthy. Or, in the same way that Pluto was regarded as a planet, and now isn’t. The meanings of words change with new information, or with new perceptions.

                      And, it is really irrelevant whether the thing is objectively true or not, since all that matters is whether it is regarded as true by the employers and public. The relevance is a changing understanding of what ” equality” means according to “new information” about same sex relationships etc.

                      But World Vision is “doing God’s work’ by helping poor children. If a person in a same-sex marriage can help those children, then they are still doing God’s work. The expression of ‘helping poor children’ is still God’s work, even if done by people in same-sex marriages. Based on that principle, if World Vision was to not use the services of a same-sex married person who could (hypothetically) alleviate all childhood poverty, they would still be doing God’s work. But their adherance to their ‘no same sex marrieds’ rule would mean that fewer children would be helped. But if helping children is the mechanism by which they are showing their devotion to God’s work, it seems odd that they would take steps that would not further that aim.

                      I think ” institutional identity” includes whom one employs, and the attitudes that they have.

                      Again, I must quibble over this word “force” – I think it is the wrong word to use.

                      Really? You’ve never heard a justification for anti-misegenation not based on racial superiority? I have – the old canard that the races should not interbreed because each is wonderful and distinct and it is immoral to destroy that by race mixing. There is nothing in that that inherently says one race is inferior to another. Also, you miss my point entirely- that while it possible to make arguments for allowing anti miscegenation companies based on freedom of association etc, it is easier, and more common, if you are a racist. In the same way, I don’t deny that there may be good reasons to oppose SSM (I don’t think there are), but it is easier if you hate gay people.

                      You don’t think people adopt positions as a form of social signalling? If the svastika can become associated with Nazi ideology, so completely different from its original meaning, then saying “I don’t support same sex marriage” can also become coopted for social signalling. It isn’t really in your power to decide what “I don’t support SSM” means in a social context, since what we are talking about is how it is perceived, and how it is used by people who perceive it x,y, or z.

                      //overall “norming” of homosexuality – happy to elaborate if you want).//

                      Nah, I know what you mean. You wish them every happiness in life, but oppose society regarding their loving, consenting relationships as normal and natural expressions of human sexuality. Now, that is animus. I don’t doubt you don’t feel hatred towards gay people, but it is still pretty hateful to regard their sexual relationships as inherently evil, for *any* reason, including connecting sexual activity with procreation. Also, there seems to be a contradiction – you wish them every happiness, but what would bring me happiness is for society to approve same-sex sexual relationships. So you can’t really do both – you can’t wish me a happy life, if what would bring me a happy life is societal acceptance for my sexual relationships, to which you are opposed.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      //But the word “healthy” did encompass using tobacco, in exactly the same way that the word “gravity” meant the concept as understood by Newton, prior to General Relativity.//

                      No, the word “healthy” meant beneficial to the human body, and there was an erroneous belief that tobacco fit that definition. If the very same people who used the word “healthy” in the 40’s (when tobacco was promoted as healthy) were given the factual data that we have now, they would readily agree that it is *not* in fact healthy. This is because the definition of “healthy” is a *fact-bound* definition – it depends on whether a given empirical fact is true of a given thing. If the thing is (in fact) beneficial to the human body, then it is healthy.

                      On the other hand, the word “equality” (or “fairness” or “justice”) is not defined in a fact-bound way – or at least not in terms of *empirical* facts. If someone strongly believes that (for example) drunkenness is *inherently* evil, then no showing of mere *data* will alter that conclusion – because the base principle involved is non-consequentialist. Drunkenness isn’t evil *because* it makes men violent (or whatever) – it’s evil *regardless* of its consequences. So what data could you possibly produce that would invalidate that conclusion? [By the way, I don’t actually believe that particular principle, at least not as an absolute]

                      Because the meaning of “equality” cannot be empirically determined, it inherently takes its meaning from its use. If I sign a contract agreeing to “equality” and what both I and the other party believe at the time that we’re talking about (for example) *racial* equality, then the other guy can’t later come along and say, “Hey, my views and the views of society have ‘evolved’ to believe that ‘equality’ includes sexual orientation, so now you’re bound by that.” That would be binding me to a principle that I never agreed to be bound by (and that the other guy didn’t even initially *intend* for me to be bound by).

                      //The relevance is a changing understanding of what ” equality” means according to “new information” about same sex relationships etc.//

                      I disagree. As I attempted to explain just above, “new information” about same-sex relationships may change someone’s *opinion* about whether it is a *good idea* to extend the meaning of “equality” to cover them, but that’s not a “changing understanding,” it’s a changing opinion. It’s not like some new study was released that gave society greater insight into the underlying nature of equality – such a study would be impossible. Rather, new data has only *persuaded* a greater number of people (via emotion, not rational analysis – which is not inherently a bad thing, but it’s not the same as getting new scientific data to show that tobacco is bad for you).

                      //As another analogy, if an organisation was set up by founders with a “pro-Christian” ethos, prior to the Protestant Reformation,when Christian was widely understood to equal Catholic, and it subsequently employed a founder who was anti-Protestant, I think it would be legitimate to say that that would be in violation of the ethos of the company, even if at the time of writing “pro-Christian” did not include Protestants.//

                      An interesting example, because I actually think it proves *my* point. Prior to the Reformation, the term “Christian” was considered more-or-less synonymous with the Catholic Church (and/or the Orthodox Church, but that’s a hair we don’t need to split right now). Therefore, “pro-Christian” would have meant, to anyone hearing it, “pro-Church”. Anyone who was opposed to the Church was seen not as a Christian, but as a heretic (whether this was right or not is beside the point right now). Therefore, after the Reformation, opposition to the Protestant “heresy” could very well be a *requirement* in such an organization, not a disqualification.

                      //To take it to the utter extreme, a Satanist who is good at helping poor children would still be doing God’s work, even if they spent the weekend making goat sacrifices and burning crosses.//

                      You’re assuming, as a hidden premise, that “good” and “evil” are not objectively real things. I believe they are, and so the Satanist’s involvement would be absolute spiritual poison to the entire effort, even if the concrete, material outcomes were “positive.”

                      Other than that, though, I’m going to drop the World Vision issue, because while the distinction between a faith-based charity and a secular charity is crystal clear to me, I will freely admit that I am having great difficulty clearly articulating that distinction to you (owing, I’m sure, to a deficiency in my own abilities, not any fault of yours).

                      //An institutional identity of being pro-gay would clearly preclude them from employing you, as you are not pro-gay, and you could not be “pro-gay” even on company time.//

                      If being “pro-gay” was necessary to complete the company’s work, then yes, I’m in complete agreement with you. I couldn’t possibly be employed in a job where I would need to be (for example) helping gay couples get marriage licenses, because I *know* that I couldn’t possibly do the work required of me – and it would be unfair to the company for me to even apply.

                      However, if the company was “pro-gay” on an institutional level, but my only job was to (for example) do IT service, then I’d be as qualified as anyone, because I’m more than capable of being polite and friendly to gay coworkers or customers (and I would do so whether or not it was required of me). The company has no right to care how I *think* on company time, only how I *act* on company time.

                      //I have – the old canard that the races should not interbreed because each is wonderful and distinct and it is immoral to destroy that by race mixing.//

                      OK, fair enough – I hadn’t heard that one. I agree with you (quoted just below) that that’s not the point though.

                      //I don’t deny that there may be good reasons to oppose SSM (I don’t think there are), but it is easier if you hate gay people.//

                      Sure, it’s easier to oppose *any* policy if you hate the people who favor it and/or would benefit from it. That doesn’t mean that it’s a valid inference that anyone who opposes the policy is likely to hate the people. It’s a uni-directional inference – people who hate the group will almost always oppose the policy, but that doesn’t mean people who oppose the policy will almost always hate the group.

                      As I said (somewhat snidely, I’m afraid) to Scott Rose (far below), I oppose the NOW’s agenda – does that mean I can be inferred to hate women? Also, I oppose illegal immigration amnesty – does that mean I must hate immigrants? Or maybe just Mexicans, specifically? Does opposing affirmative action mean I hate blacks and other racial minorities?

                      Or is it just possible that I have reasons for opposing all of the above that are not at all related to my feelings towards the groups that support and/or benefit from these policies? I suspect you would oppose government funding for parochial schools – is it because you hate Christians? [In case it’s not clear, that’s rhetorical – I’m not actually accusing you]

                      //You don’t think people adopt positions as a form of social signalling?//

                      Sure they do. But, again, it only goes in one direction. *Some* people may adopt certain positions as a way to signal some broader social affiliation, but that doesn’t mean that the social affiliation is the *only* reason for adopting that position (or even the dominant one).

                      Positions are different from symbols in that way. A swastika has such a broadly-known meaning that anyone who wears one *without* intending a Nazi implication is either an idiot living under a rock, or outrageously insensitive to the message he’ll be sending.

                      On the other hand, let’s say that the most commonly-known “signal” of the “anti-SSM” position is homophobia. What if I am anti-SSM and not homophobic? Should I just *not* voice my opinion at all – muzzle myself rather than risk guilt by association? Should any position or ideology that gets a bad reputation or association in the media simply self-censor and remove itself from the ideological debate? That seems pretty dystopian to me.

                      That’s why I believe that symbols should be read according to their accumulated meaning, but verbally expressed ideas should be judged by their own merits and not assumed to be signs of some broader worldview.

                      //You wish them every happiness in life, but oppose society regarding their loving, consenting relationships as normal and natural expressions of human sexuality. Now, that is animus.//

                      No, it isn’t. If there is some objective fact about what is or is not “natural” for humans (as I believe there is – i.e. it’s not just “socially constructed” or whatever), then it isn’t animus to simply disagree with popular opinion about what that natural order is. If it is objectively true that homosexual urges are dis-ordered (I use the hyphen to denote the technical sense of “askew” or “out of whack” rather than the colloquial use of “sick” or “diseased”), then it isn’t hateful to say so.

                      Now, of course you and I will *disagree* about whether that is an objective fact or not, and even about what criteria can be used to prove or disprove it, but a disagreement of fact has nothing to do with animus. I don’t hate (or have any other negative emotion towards) people who think that humans have no immortal souls, either – I simply think they’re incorrect.

                      Also, please let me clarify that I *do not* think that people who follow homosexual urges are some “specially bad” sort of sinner, or that the urges themselves are some “specially bad” dis-order. I put homosexually dis-ordered sexual urges on the same level as unchaste sexual urges (e.g. premarital sex), which are themselves no better or worse than having a bad temper, or an inclination to gluttony, or an arrogant personality. All are simply urges to act in a way contrary to how we ought to act.

                      I, for one, have no homosexual urges, but I used to have a nasty temper, and I still do struggle daily with gluttony and sloth. I’m no better than most “active” gay people, and they’re no worse than me – some may well be better than me in many ways.

                      //So you can’t really do both – you can’t wish them a happy life, if what would bring them a happy life is societal acceptance for their sexual relationships//

                      You’re implicitly defining “happiness” as “fulfillment of desires.” I would disagree with that definition. When I say I wish them happiness, I am speaking in both an explicitly Christian mode, and an implicitly Aristotelian mode. Aristotle used the term “eudaimonia,” which is often translated as “happiness,” but better translated as “a good life,” and which he defined by reference not to the “pleasure” sort of happiness, but to being the best person one could be – wanting only that which is best to want.

                      So, when I say I wish someone a happy life, I don’t mean one in which the desires they happen to have are all fulfilled, but rather one in which they desire all that is best to desire, and then receive it. “Happiness” for a junkie may mean a needle in the arm, but that’s not real happiness. Happiness for a glutton may mean eating 3000 calories a day, and for a philanderer it may mean four or five different women each week – but *true* happiness would be freedom from being ruled by such urges.

                      I’m sure you’ll probably find that to sound condescending, and I truly do apologize for that impression. Again, let me assure you that this applies to me just as much. Moreover, I know that you don’t believe as I do, and see no reason why I would think that what you see as a fulfilling homosexual relationship should be classed in the same group as overeating and so forth – I truly cannot even attempt to explain it unless we have time to argue through my entire worldview from the bottom up.

                      I only hope that you’ll see that I can respect and even love gay people, while opposing their desires, in the same way that I could respect and love a philandering friend, even while opposing the “happiness” he may find in sleeping his way through the phonebook. He, like you, may have what he thinks are very cogent arguments for why his behavior is just a different lifestyle that I should accept and affirm – but the truly loving thing to do (by my best lights) *is* to oppose him and tell him he’s wrong. [He’s hypothetical, by the way]

                      //As an analogy, I don’t wish you a happy life as a Catholic, since your version of a happy life is to see homosexuality shunned. In fact, I wish you a miserable life//

                      Just so you know, I’m not offended by that. I understand exactly what you mean. However, see above – you’re wishing me a “miserable” life because you’re equating “happiness” for me with “getting what I want.” I have no problem with you wishing me failure where our interests clash – I wish you the same. I still wish you “eudaimonia,” though. And, if it happens that I’m wrong about God’s will (or His existence), and that eudaimonia *does* encompass acceptance and approval of same-sex relationships, then I still wish you eudaimonia. He is the yardstick by which I measure my opinions – my opinions can’t be the yardstick by which I presume to measure Him.

                    • Tom

                      //Because the meaning of “equality” cannot be empirically determined, it inherently takes its meaning from its use. //

                      But, in that case, when someone now uses the term “equality”, or a company writes it into its charter, it does mean being “pro-gay”. And, the fact that Eich may have helped write the charter originally, doesn’t mean that the interpretation, the meaning, of that word in the charter doesn’t change if the wording of the charter is not changed. For example, a company could mention the planet Saturn in its founding document. Prior to 2006, that word “planet” was understood to include Pluto. After 2006, it is not. Yet they are the same word. So, a pre-2006 charter mentioning Saturn as a planet would technically mean a different thing to a post 2006 charter talking of the planet Saturn, because the understanding of “planet” has changed. But there is no reason for the company or institute to change its charter calling Saturn a planet, as Saturn is still a planet even by the new definition. So, even if the words of the charter are identical between 2005 and 2007, the meaning of the charter has changed based on common consensus. In that respect, if I am reading a pre-2006 book on “The Planets”, I can read the section on Saturn and understand the word “planet” in my post-2006 understanding, however, when I read the section on Pluto, I must understand the word in terms of the pre-2006 word “planet”. This could even apply to one sentence compared to the very next one. In the same way, the common understanding of “equality”, between the time that Eich helped found the company, and the time when he joined it as CEO, changed, and even if the charter of the company was not expressly altered to account for that change, its meaning can still have altered, because the understanding of the word “equality” changed.

                      And I would quibble that when Eich signed on as CEO, the rest of the board where unaware of his Prop 8 support. Had they been, they may not have agreed to take him on board. It is perfectly possible that at the time Eich agreed to work for Mozilla, when they shook hands, there was a misunderstanding between the two parties about what “equality” meant, and Mozilla was unable to spot the problem because they were unaware of Eich’s donation.

                      //I disagree. As I attempted to explain just above, “new information” about same-sex relationships may change someone’s *opinion* about whether it is a *good idea* to extend the meaning of “equality” to cover them, but that’s not a “changing understanding,” it’s a changing opinion//

                      But, if the common opinion about what “equality” means changes, and “equality” can mean whatever the person using the word means, then it is perfectly true to say that when Mozilla says that “equality” means being pro-SSM, that is what equality means, so Eich can be violating Mozilla’s ethos by supporting Prop 8.

                      //You’re implicitly defining “happiness” as “fulfillment of desires.” I would disagree with that definition.//

                      Yes, I suspected that what you meant was the Aristotelian concept of “happiness”. Look, another word that means something completely different depending on how and when you use it!

                      //An interesting example, because I actually think it proves *my* point.//

                      I don’t think it does, because an evolving understanding of what it means to be “Christian” means that actually it could be acceptable to fire that new CEO.

                      //You’re assuming, as a hidden premise, that “good” and “evil” are not objectively real things.//

                      No I am not; in fact I am assuming the opposite. I am saying that helping poor children is good (which is doing God’s work) whatever the motivation or other activity of a person. So, regardless of whether or not a Satanist is actually doing “God’s work” to honor and obey God, they are still doing God’s work, because such work is good. So, in that sense, any charity that helps poor children is “doing God’s work”, and any person who helps poor children is also “doing God’s work”. Because World Vision’s mission has been determined to “do God’s work” by helping poor children, it is impossible for a Satanist to poison that work, provided that they are committed to the same goal of helping poor children. Considering only the Satanist’s contribution to God’s work of helping poor children, they can very well be a great help. And, as I say, i would be very interested to hear whether World Vision employs people of other religions.

                      //Or is it just possible that I have reasons for opposing all of the above that are not at all related to my feelings//

                      Yes, I can understand that. However, I did say above that I agreed with you “up to a point”. My point being that while opposition to SSM may not be intrinsically hateful towards gay people, I think in many cases people who are anti-SSM do hate gay people.

                      //That’s why I believe that symbols should be read according to their accumulated meaning, but verbally expressed ideas should be judged by their own merits and not assumed to be signs of some broader worldview.//

                      Okay. I disagree. I think if someone knows that a particular position is closely associated with ideas viewed as vile, they should keep silent (or, express them, but understand and accept when people react with revulsion when they do). There is nothing inherently dystopian about that.

                      //Also, I oppose illegal immigration amnesty – does that mean I must hate immigrants? Or maybe just Mexicans, specifically? Does opposing affirmative action mean I hate blacks and other racial minorities?//

                      Again, I think those positions are helped by being racist, yes. Hell, I accept that some people may view me as racist for expressing views about foreign aid, or development, that are uncommon, and may be associated with being a racist. It doesn’t really bother me. Lol, I might go so far as to say, “Okay, these position might be racist, it doesn’t mean that they are wrong”. That is, grant the accuser the validity of their accusation, and fight them on that ground.

                      //I don’t hate (or have any other negative emotion towards) people who think that humans have no immortal souls, either – I simply think they’re incorrect.//

                      Ah, but I have specifically severed someone feeling “hatred” for a gay person, and that person still acting out hatefully, and believing hateful things. A rapist may not “hate” the person they rape, yet I would still say they hated that person. Likewise, it is perfectly possible to be a racist, and not “hate” black people. One can (hypothetically) merely view them as inferior – one does not hate a sheep or a dog when one calls them inferior to a human. The hatred stems from something other than feeling. So, I can perfectly well say that believing that homosexuality is objectively disordered is hatred, because I think that belief is resting on hateful criteria. It is the same reason why I think there is some justice in saying that those who oppose cannabis legalization “hate” cannabis dealers or users.

                      //I truly cannot even attempt to explain it unless we have time to argue through my entire worldview from the bottom up.//

                      Trust that I understand a great deal about this. I have read various works on “Natural Law” as it relates to sexuality and body theology. A short explanation would be that I view it as “hatred” to consider a human to be an embodied entity. That is, I think repulsive the view that what is “human” is to both equally physical and spiritual. I think it is an vile and unwarranted constraint upon human will and domination over the physical universe. I further understand that much of the “culture wars” boil down to this essential difference in view about what it is to be human.

                      //He is the yardstick by which I measure my opinions – my opinions can’t be the yardstick by which I presume to measure Him.//

                      I would have though Natural Law would have been a more relevant yardstick in today’s secular world.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      //the understanding of “planet” has changed//

                      “Planet” is a weird case, because a scientific body has explicitly, and by fiat, changed the *criteria* for what constitutes a “planet.” It is debatable whether they even have the authority to do so, and if they do, then we truly are talking about two *completely separate* words (just like 2014 “gay” is spelled and pronounced the same as 1920 “gay,” and actually derives its etymology from the older word, but they’re actually two completely separate words with different definitions).

                      In general, however, the same point I tried to make before applies here: adjectives that denote an empirical fact or set of facts are different in kind from those that denote a moral or ethical status.

                      If we now consider mercury to be “toxic,” but it wasn’t considered so in the 1800’s, it’s not because “toxic” means anything different now than it did then – it’s because we know more about mercury, and can now see that it meets the objective criteria for “toxic.”

                      On the other hand, if the word “cruel” meant, to the ratifiers of the Eighth Amendment, “causing excessive physical pain,” but people now consider mental anguish to be “cruel,” then people now are not using the same *definition* of “cruel” as was used in the early 1800’s. It’s not that we suddenly discovered, with our superior science, that mental anguish is empirically equivalent to physical pain, and it’s not like people in the 1800’s were somehow unaware of mental anguish as a thing that exists – we’ve actually *changed* what we mean when we use the word “cruel.”

                      I would contend that “equality” is a lot more like “cruel” (i.e. fraught with value judgments and not susceptible of empirical examination) than it is like “toxic” (i.e. denoting a discrete set of testable characteristics).

                      //And I would quibble that when Eich signed on as CEO, the rest of the board where unaware of his Prop 8 support. Had they been, they may not have agreed to take him on board.//

                      Eich was a co-founder. Therefore, it could be argued that if he and the board disagreed on what the corporate charter meant, the board was wrong, not him.

                      //But, if the common opinion about what “equality” means changes, and “equality” can mean whatever the person using the word means, then it is perfectly true to say that when Mozilla says that “equality” means being pro-SSM, that is what equality means, so Eich can be violating Mozilla’s ethos by supporting Prop 8.//

                      I would contend that the meaning of the word is fixed at the point at which it is recorded. So, if “equality” did not mean pro-SSM to Eich and the other founders when they wrote it into the corporate charter, then it doesn’t mean that now (unless the corporation were dissolved and reincorporated with a new charter).

                      Again, “equality” isn’t like “toxic.” We have no new data that suddenly makes SSM “fit” into the definition of equality – rather, the public has *redefined* “equality” to include SSM (i.e. abolished the old word and made a new one).

                      If there were a will or trust from the 1920’s that commanded the beneficiary to “host a gay party” once per summer in the mansion he inherited, would you agree that he is only obligated to host a lively, cheery, brightly-decorated party, not necessarily one with a homosexual theme? The public opinion of what “gay” means has definitely shifted since then, but I think anyone would agree that we would read that will using the meaning the word had when it was written.

                      //I don’t think it does, because an evolving understanding of what it means to be “Christian” means that actually it could be acceptable to fire that new CEO.//

                      OK, let’s not belabor this one then – we clearly reach opposite conclusions from the same facts. I think a word has a meaning when it is spoken, written, or otherwise uttered, and that the passage of time doesn’t change that meaning. You think that a word (at least one in any sort of commanding or binding statement) changes its meaning in conformity with public usage. I don’t think we’re going to break that impasse anytime soon.

                      //No I am not; in fact I am assuming the opposite. I am saying that helping poor children is good (which is doing God’s work) whatever the motivation or other activity of a person.//

                      OK, maybe I should have been more precise. I don’t simply believe that good and evil are objective realities. I believe that they have real, supernatural, spiritual presence. So, a Satanist (at least one who actually worships Satan, not just the “freethinker” type) would be literally contaminated with evil, and that evil would undermine any good work he or she was involved in. You may think I’m silly for believing it, but I’m an old-school Catholic – I believe in a real devil, real demonic possessions and exorcisms, real miracles and holy apparitions, the whole nine yards.

                      //My point being that while opposition to SSM may not be intrinsically hateful towards gay people, I think in many cases people who are anti-SSM do hate gay people.//

                      Fair enough. That’s an empirical hypothesis that I lack data to confirm or refute, though I will certainly acknowledge that it’s very plausible that at least a significant minority of anti-SSM people hate gays.

                      //I think if someone knows that a particular position is closely associated with ideas viewed as vile, they should keep silent […] grant the accuser the validity of their accusation, and fight them on that ground.//

                      OK, knowing more detail about how you see it, this makes more sense to me. I’m still generally opposed to any form of purely ideological “guilt by association,” but I can concede your position as a second-best alternative.

                      //Ah, but I have specifically severed someone feeling “hatred” for a gay person, and that person still acting out hatefully, and believing hateful things.//

                      OK, I guess we need to define terms here, then. I’m not limiting “hatred” to only the *feeling* of visceral hate. I readily acknowledge that true hate can take forms other than open animosity. However, if by “hate” you mean something that doesn’t require *any* contempt or ill-will at all, then I’m really not sure what you mean. Trying to define “hate” and “hateful” so broadly *seems* to risk falling into the emotivist trap (i.e. “hateful belief” simply means “belief which I find unacceptable and/or offensive”).

                      If hate is some actual negative relation to the putative object of the hate, then it would be worthy of condemnation. If, on the other hand, to “hate” an individual or group is merely to espouse beliefs that are detrimental to that individual or group (no matter the reason), then I’m not sure that it has any inherent moral import (i.e. by that definition, I don’t think you could say that it’s inherently *wrong* to “hate”… which seems dubious to me).

                      My personal [rough, off-the-top-of-my-head] definition of “hate” is “to wish ill upon another without justification, and/or to perceive another as inherently inferior.” I’m unclear on yours.

                      I’m confused, and would welcome clarification.

                      // I would perfectly accept as valid if you were to accuse me of “hating” humans because I do not view them as having immortal souls, because I am denying something that you believe to be wholly true and good.//

                      I wouldn’t level that accusation – you aren’t denigrating humans, except in comparison to my personal view of them. If you thought that humans had no souls *and therefore* were wholly expendable in the service of your own desires, then I might say you hate humans, or if you wished calamity upon the human race.

                      //A short explanation would be that I view it as “hatred” to consider a human to be an embodied entity. That is, I think repulsive the view that what is “human” is to both equally physical and spiritual. I think it is an vile and unwarranted constraint upon human will and domination over the physical universe.//

                      I’m a bit confused. What you wrote sounds interesting, but I’m not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that humans are wholly physical beings? Or, conversely, are you saying that humans are wholly spiritual, and that the body is no true part of humanity, but merely matter that we exercise our wills upon? I’m keenly interested in this sort of philosophical debate, but I can’t quite discern your premise.

                      //I would have though Natural Law would have been a more relevant yardstick in today’s secular world.//

                      Certainly a more socially-accepted yardstick, sure. I believe that God is the Author of Natural Law, though, and since I believe He is real, it would be rather silly of me to prefer some other standard, merely in order to conform better to society.

                      Don’t get me wrong – I believe Natural Law is a real thing. I just think that using Natural Law *instead* of God as my standard would be like using only the Supreme Court caselaw of the U.S. Reports, while never bothering to read the Constitution (i.e. looking only at the emanations from the source, rather than looking to the Source Himself).

                    • Tom

                      //In general, however, the same point I tried to make before applies here: adjectives that denote an empirical fact or set of facts are different in kind from those that denote a moral or ethical status.//

                      Ah yes, but “planet” is no more a relative term than “equality”, in that the empirical, physical, objective criteria chosen to define “planet” are subjective. It is the same kind of distinction, because one can quite easily believe that a “planet” ought to be a different set of things to the current standard.

                      //On the other hand, if the word “cruel” meant, to the ratifiers of the Eighth Amendment//

                      Ah yes, the US Constitution. Is then your position that the Bill of Rights, as originally written, did not cover black slaves, as the writers of that document were in some cases slave owners themselves. Furthermore, it seems obvious (at least to the like of Bryan Fischer) that the 1st Amendment was only written with regard to the various Christian denominations, not to Islam. Do you think the 1st Amendment applies to Islam, and if so, can you ground that in reasonable expectations of what the founders wanted?

                      //Eich was a co-founder. Therefore, it could be argued that if he and the board disagreed on what the corporate charter meant, the board was wrong, not him.//

                      It could be, but not successfully :P. If a founder leaves a company, his original opinion about what the founding document means is irrelevant if it gets reinterpreted by the new owners. This must be the case. If the founder sells the company to new owners, the new owners own everything about that company, including the founding charter, and, more importantly, the *meaning* of the founding charter, theirs to reinterpret as they see fit.

                      //The public opinion of what “gay” means has definitely shifted since then, but I think anyone would agree that we would read that will using the meaning the word had when it was written.//

                      Yes, but if that word has been maintained in the document continuously as the company exists in a pro-gay (homosexual) world, then I think it reasonable to assume that the new meaning is to be a homosexual party. The difference is that the will is “permanently authored” by the person who wrote it in the 1920s, however, the charter of a company is the property of whoever owns it, and therefore can be interpreted at will. Eich no more owned the charter, or the meaning of the charter, then he owned any property of the company once it was transferred to its new owners.

                      //So, a Satanist (at least one who actually worships Satan, not just the “freethinker” type) would be literally contaminated with evil, and that evil would undermine any good work he or she was involved in//

                      But it wouldn’t undermine the spiritual nature of the work of doing good for poor children. If Satan himself is helping poor children, he is doing good work, therefore God’s work (one reason why he does not help poor children, one would think). You are trying to say that World Vision had a universal view of the spiritual good, by which I mean spiritual good in every dimension. It didn’t. It has as its aim the spiritual work of helping poor children. Considered purely in the dimension of the spiritual work of helping poor children, as an expression of God’s work, a Satanist could fulfill World Vision’s spiritual mission. (I would think that a Satanist working for World Vision would be far more likely to have their relationship with Satan breakdown, than for World Vision’s relationship with God to break down. After all, the Satanist is doing God’s work).

                      //My personal [rough, off-the-top-of-my-head] definition of “hate” is “to wish ill upon another without justification, and/or to perceive another as inherently inferior.” I’m unclear on yours.//

                      Another what? Person, presumably. So, viewing a dog as inferior to a person is not hate, because they actually are inferior, but perceiving a black person as inferior to a white person is hate, because they are not. But that comes back to a difference of opinion. Let us remind ourselves, it is not primarily for empirical reasons that we view the races as equal, but for some other reason. Now, if we are to accept your view that mere disagreement over the status of objective facts is not hate, then it cannot be hate *of itself* to view black people as inferior, because the whole nature of the disagreement is what constitutes a “person”, and whether different “people” are equal. On a related topic, I have read your abortion posts. Do you think pro-choice people “hate” the unborn, since some could certainly be considered to think that the unborn is inferior to an adult human, but you view the unborn as a person. I don’t really see how, using this admittedly rough definition of “hate”, pro-choicers who view the unborn as not a person wouldn’t be considered hateful in your view. This of course has the impact that your would be accusing someone of “hatred” over mere disagreement over what constitutes a person. I think something can be considered “hate” if it characterizes something good as evil. So believing that homosexual sexual relationships are wrong is hatred because i believe they are not intrinsically wrong, but good.

                      //(i.e. by that definition, I don’t think you could say that it’s inherently *wrong* to “hate”… which seems dubious to me).//

                      I don’t think it is. I hate Nazis. Not just Nazis ideology, I hate the actual person who holds Nazis views.

                      //I wouldn’t level that accusation – you aren’t denigrating humans, except in comparison to my personal view of them.//

                      But then that would require one to believe that there is a thing called “human” beyond your personal idea of what they are. If “human” means to you a creature that has a soul, then how can I not be denigrating them? What is it I am denigrating? Certainly not what you view as “human”, but then, were I a racist, I could say that black people were not “human”.

                      //I’m keenly interested in this sort of philosophical debate, but I can’t quite discern your premise.//

                      I am a substance dualist, who believes that the body is an instrument, a tool, to be used as the mind desires. To that end, I don’t actually think inter-species marriage is intrinsically wrong, but is premised on the notion of consent. So, while marrying a sheep is wrong (and absurd), marrying a sentient alien who looked exactly like a sheep, wouldn’t be. But, I should point out that that debate is wildly beyond the remit of this comment thread, and, given that we are each replying to a length of over 1000 words, it is probably not the best forum to discuss it in either.

                      //I believe that God is the Author of Natural Law, though, and since I believe He is real, it would be rather silly of me to prefer some other standard, merely in order to conform better to society.//

                      Hmm, I am not sure that that is exactly a correct interpretation of Natural Law, or its relationship to God. Of course God, as alleged author of the entire universe could be said to be author of everything in it, but that is generally not what is meant when one talks of “Natural Law”, since the whole point of Natural Law is it is meant to be rationally appreciable (though it isn’t) even by those who deny the existence of God. In that sense, I have read, that even if God did not exist, the Natural Law would remain. Now, I think that is hogwash, but I do believe it is the standard, and Catholic, view of Natural Law.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      // the empirical, physical, objective criteria chosen to define “planet” are subjective.//

                      Sure, and that’s why I said that “planet” was an odd case – because even though everyone *thinks* they know what it means, in broad strokes, it is actually akin to a scientific “term of art” whose meaning is deliberately and prescriptively set by experts.

                      That’s why, for the rest of the discussion, I used “toxic” instead – because it is a term whose meaning is clear and empirical, but organically developed in language, and it does not have (outside of the specialized definitions of the medical profession) any fiddly, hair-splitting elements to it.

                      //Is then your position that the Bill of Rights, as originally written, did not cover black slaves, as the writers of that document were in some cases slave owners themselves.//

                      Absolutely, though not for quite so simple a reason. I *do* believe that, until the 13th and 14th Amendments, the Bill of Rights did not apply to slaves, who were legally property, not people. (I think that it’s awful that they were legally deemed property, but that doesn’t change the truth.)

                      However, I am an “original understanding” originalist, not a “Framers’ intent” originalist, when it comes to the Constitution (because the Constitution was not a mere agreement among the drafters and signers, but rather a supreme law of the land, enacted by the entire voting public). So, what the writers themselves believed the words meant is irrelevant. What the words would have reasonably been understood to mean by the voting public is what matters.

                      Nonetheless, it is quite clear that no one thought that the Bill of Rights was giving any rights to slaves (otherwise the southern states would never have ratified it – not to mention the evidence of the Three-Fifths Clause and the Importation Clause), and so it didn’t. The words that became law in the Constitution were the words ratified by the voters – therefore, they have to mean what the people actually thought they were voting for. Otherwise you’d have a law that no one actually voted for, and that’s completely at odds with our core principles of government.

                      //Do you think the 1st Amendment applies to Islam, and if so, can you ground that in reasonable expectations of what the founders wanted?//

                      Again, I don’t much care what the Founders (or Framers) wanted, but rather what would have been reasonably understood by an educated member of the public. Regardless, yes, I do think the 1st Amendment applied and applies to Islam at least, based on the evidence of the Treaty of Tripoli. Whether it properly applies to modern belief systems that the founding generation might not even have *recognized* as legitimate religions is admittedly an open question.

                      Basically, the crux of the matter is not whether the 1st Amendment was *intended* to deal with all religions or only with Christian denominations, but rather, whether a given “religion” would fall into the broad definition of “religion” that the founding generation would have been familiar with.

                      I suspect that most modern religions would qualify, even pagan ones, since the founding generation can be shown to have used the word “religion” in reference to the practices of various pagan tribesmen and so forth. Some of the odder ones, however, like Scientology (which has no prayers or gods at all) or Satanism (which I suspect the founding generation would have considered more of an “anti-religion”) might very well be outside the First Amendment’s scope.

                      //the *meaning* of the founding charter, theirs to reinterpret as they see fit.//

                      See, that’s where I’m pretty sure you’re off-base. A corporate charter is a legal document, not just a mission statement. It isn’t simply open to reinterpretation by whoever owns the company. Like any legal document, it has a fixed meaning.

                      //Yes, but if that word has been maintained in the document continuously as the company exists in a pro-gay (homosexual) world, then I think it reasonable to assume that the new meaning is to be a homosexual party.//

                      No offense, but you’re clearly not very familiar with how lawyers work :-p We’re a peculiar bunch, and one of our peculiarities is that we tend to cling tenaciously to old language. The reason the 1920’s word, “gay,” would still be in a legal document today, even if there had been ample opportunity to change it, is simply because lawyers often will keep the language of a document the same (even through successive iterations) unless they *want* to change its meaning.

                      Much of the time, a lawyer will simply assume that if he copies over the exact language from a previous document, it will have the same effect as the previous document – that’s why, in court cases, you’ll often see arguments that go something like, “Law A in State B was essentially copied from Law C in State D. State D’s highest court had already definitively ruled that Phrase X in Law C meant Z. Therefore, since our legislature adopted Phrase X without alteration, we should also interpret it to mean Z.” That’s usually a *successful* argument.

                      //I would think that a Satanist working for World Vision would be far more likely to have their relationship with Satan breakdown, than for World Vision’s relationship with God to break down.//

                      I’m not saying the Satanist would corrupt the organization in any overt way, or even have any effect on the overall sanctity of the other members. Think of evil like an oil slick – if you’re covered in it, it gets on everything you touch. Have you ever been in a conversation with someone who is truly vile, and then had this feeling like you want to take a shower? That’s the sort of contamination I mean – evil rubs off, even if you don’t let it get inside you.

                      //The having of naked orgies or sacrificing of goats is outside the defining characteristic of World Vision, which is doing God’s work by helping poor children.//

                      I don’t think good and evil can be compartmentalized and atomized like that. Helping poor children is the *way* that World Vision does God’s work, but it’s not like “goodness” or “God’s work” are these multipartite concepts, like choosing a major in college.

                      It’s not, “I’m going to major in helping poor children, and minor in building communities, but I’ll take an elective in goat sacrifice and it won’t affect my graduation prereqs.” It’s, “I’m going to dedicate my life to God’s service, and the particular way in which I feel He is calling me to serve is by helping poor children.” If you make that kind of commitment, but then go completely *against* God’s will in another aspect of your life, then you’re undermining the whole effort. A lot of good plus a lot of evil doesn’t balance out to “mostly good.” Even a single unrepented mortal sin is impossible to simply “cancel out” with good deeds.

                      //Another what? Person, presumably.//

                      Yes, sorry, I took that for granted.

                      //perceiving a black person as inferior to a white person is hate, because they are not. But that comes back to a difference of opinion. Let us remind ourselves, it is not primarily for empirical reasons that we view the races as equal, but for some other reason.//

                      I disagree. We have hard DNA evidence that all races are equally human, so racial equality then becomes the presumption. If someone chooses to view blacks as inferior, in contradiction to the manifest weight of evidence and without any similarly compelling countervailing evidence, then that’s not a difference of opinion – it’s just incorrect and irrational. So, in my view, it *is* for empirical reasons that we view the races as equal – because we have empirical evidence that we’re all the same basic creatures, and we have no empirical evidence of any correlation between race and any given measure of moral worth (regardless of what quality you choose to be your primary metric).

                      Also, I should note that when I say “inferior” in this context, I mean “of lesser worth or inherent dignity.” It’s not hateful to say (for example) that the average woman is “inferior in physical strength” to the average man, or that Bob is “inferior in reasoning capacity” to Larry, provided that one doesn’t make the further inference of, “Therefore, the average woman is less important than the average man,” or “Therefore, Bob is entitled to less respect than Larry.”

                      //Do you think pro-choice people “hate” the unborn, since some could certainly be considered to think that the unborn is inferior to an adult human, but you view the unborn as a person.//

                      No, I don’t think so, because *unlike* in the case of race, there are rational, good-faith arguments for and against pre-birth (or pre-viability) personhood. Therefore, the pro-choice position is merely a *mistaken* belief, rather than an invidious one (just as the belief in the inferiority of blacks was *not* necessarily hateful in nature back in the 1600’s, when, in the absence of solid evidence, people could reasonably doubt whether they were “people” in the same sense as Europeans). [Again, just to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I’m not saying it was ever, at any point in history, *correct* to view blacks as inferior or inhuman – merely that there was a point in history when a person of good faith and good will could have reasonably held that belief.]

                      //I think something can be considered “hate” if it characterizes something good as evil. So believing that homosexual sexual relationships are wrong is hatred because i believe they are not intrinsically wrong, but good.//

                      But by that definition, any disagreement over morality is inherently hateful. I think perhaps that argument proves too much. I feel, intuitively, that it ought to be possible for reasonable people to disagree about whether a thing is good or evil without one of them being guilty of hatred towards the other.

                      //I don’t think it is. I hate Nazis. Not just Nazis ideology, I hate the actual person who holds Nazis views.//

                      Hmm… Well, I have to disagree there. For a Catholic, “love the sinner, hate the sin” is more than just a platitude. I do believe it’s wrong to hate a person, even a very bad person (although, note that in my initial definition, I did leave room for wishing someone ill *with* good justification – so I don’t think it’s hateful per se to hope that a Nazi is killed in battle or captured and imprisoned).

                      Everyone, even the worst of people, is still a human, and ought to be treated with a certain basic human dignity. And there is no sinner so far gone that I shouldn’t pray for his repentance.

                      //But then that would require one to believe that there is a thing called “human” beyond your personal idea of what they are. If “human” means to you a creature that has a soul, then how can I not be denigrating them?//

                      What I mean is that I believe your view is (as I said above about pro-choice) mistaken, not invidious. You may believe in a state of humanity that, from my perspective, is greatly impoverished compared to what I believe we are, but your end result of what dignity is due to a human person is, I suspect, congruent with mine (at least in broad strokes).

                      //I am a substance dualist, who believes that the body is an instrument, a tool, to be used as the mind desires. […] But, I should point out that that debate is wildly beyond the remit of this comment thread//

                      Agreed, so I’ll just note that I am also a substance dualist, though I suspect we come to somewhat different endpoints from that shared starting point.

                      //the whole point of Natural Law is it is meant to be rationally appreciable (though it isn’t) even by those who deny the existence of God. In that sense, I have read, that even if God did not exist, the Natural Law would remain. Now, I think that is hogwash, but I do believe it is the standard, and Catholic, view of Natural Law.//

                      I… half agree. I agree that part of the point of Natural Law philosophy is to be able to rationally discourse on morality with non-Christians. However, I was speaking of what I use as my *personal* guide, not what premises I would start from if I were trying to justify my morality to someone else. In a debate with a non-Christian, as here, I’d probably wind up using some form of Natural Law reasoning. In evaluating *my own* beliefs, I don’t *need* to start from “neutral ground” – I can look straight to God, His Word, and His Church.

                      The part I disagree with is your counterfactual. Certainly *belief* in God is not necessary to *perceive* Natural Law (according to the standard view, which we need not debate at length). However, saying that Natural Law would still exist *in the absence* of God is, I’d say, a “non-truth-apt” statement – in other words it’s impossible to evaluate whether it’s true or false, even assuming omniscience as to all empirical data.

                      This is because, from a Catholic perspective, “if God didn’t exist” is a nonsensical counterfactual. Everything we know or can possibly know is the way it is because God made it that way (or is knowledge *about* God Himself), so if we try to do a thought experiment where we edit out God, we’re left with nothing to speculate *about*.

                      It’s like saying, “Romeo would still have fallen in love with Juliet even if William Shakespeare didn’t exist.” There’s no way to even assign a truth value to that statement, because speaking of “Romeo & Juliet if Shakespeare didn’t exist” is sheer nonsense. [Although if you’re one who believes that there was no such person as William Shakespeare, or that he took credit for someone else’s work, just substitute “the playwright credited under the name ‘William Shakespeare'” for “William Shakespeare” and it plays out the same way]

                    • Tom

                      //The words that became law in the Constitution were the words ratified by the voters – therefore, they have to mean what the people actually thought they were voting for.//

                      So, forgive me if I am wrong, but does that mean that you think the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford was the correct one? That would be a pretty bold statement if true. Indeed, you would be practically the only Christian I have talked to to believe so. I suppose at least you have the benefit of consistency in this approach, even if it leads to some rather grotesque conclusions. Not to react too viscerelly, but if that is the logical outcome of orginalism, then I am happy to reject it!

                      //it does not have (outside of the specialized definitions of the medical profession) any fiddly, hair-splitting elements to it.//

                      Which is why I choose “planet” as a closer approximation to “equality” than toxin. It is precisely in the fiddly, hair-splitting elements that the similarity comes.

                      //See, that’s where I’m pretty sure you’re off-base. A corporate charter is a legal document, not just a mission statement. It isn’t simply open to reinterpretation by whoever owns the company. Like any legal document, it has a fixed meaning.//

                      Ah, I was under the impression that it was not a legal document in the same way a contract was. That is why I think that a more accurate analogy then the will example would be a poem called “The Gay Party”. Now, if the poem is written in the 1920s, the meaning of “gay” is “light and carefree”. If the poet sells the intellectual property of the poem to someone else, and they subsequently say that “gay” in the title it to mean homosexual, then it does, because they own the poem itself, and its meaning. The original intent and meaning of the poet is irrelevant to the fact that the poem is now owned by someone else; the new meaning of “The Gay Party” is now the one that persists.

                      //is simply because lawyers often will keep the language of a document the same (even through successive iterations) unless they *want* to change its meaning.//

                      But if the meaning of “equality” has changed, there is no reason to change the word itself. The change has already happened to the word. In point of fact, I would think it more reasonable for the legal document to be altered as the meaning of the word alters. So as “gay” starts to mean “Homosexual”, the language of the document ought to be altered to “happy and carefree”. But then, I am not a lawyer.

                      //If you make that kind of commitment, but then go completely *against* God’s will in another aspect of your life, then you’re undermining the whole effort.//

                      But the problem is that in the case of World Vision, it is compartmentalised in the way that you describe. And I don’t agree that in the case of World Vision, if you as an employee go against God’s will in another aspect of your personal life, that you undermine the effort of helping poor children, even spiritually. It doesn’t make sense to me.

                      //I disagree. We have hard DNA evidence that all races are equally human, so racial equality then becomes the presumption.//

                      But it is a subjective opinion that what makes us human is our DNA. “Human” is, I would submit, another one of those words like “planet”, which may have concrete empirical characteristics, but the choice of which specific characteristics one chooses is a subjective opinion. After all, DNA is a mere matter of percentage difference, and a continuum from me, all the way to a tulip. Where does one determine which % similarity to “me” is the cut off point for consideration of what is “Human”.

                      // It’s not hateful to say (for example) that the average woman is “inferior in physical strength” to the average man, or that Bob is “inferior in reasoning capacity” to Larry, provided that one doesn’t make the further inference of, “Therefore, the average woman is less important than the average man,” or “Therefore, Bob is entitled to less respect than Larry.”//

                      But, if reasoning capacity is the criteria by which you decide whether someone is human, then Bob is worthy of less respect than Larry. What reason would you give why DNA similarity was a better criterion for deciding worth, than intelligence than reasoning capacity? Hypothetically, if it were found “Bell curve” like, that black people were generally of lower intelligence (not saying they are, just testing a hypothesis), why ought that not be a reason to consider them less worthy than white people? And, how much less intelligent would an organism have to be for you to consider them less worthy than a human?

                      //But by that definition, any disagreement over morality is inherently hateful.//

                      I think that is true, depending on the extent to which one views the goodness of the thing being disparaged.

                      //It’s like saying, “Romeo would still have fallen in love with Juliet even if William Shakespeare didn’t exist.”//

                      An interesting philosophical point. You may (not) be surprised to learn that I disagree. Firstly, in a certain sense Romeo does not fall in love with Juliet anyway, because Romeo and Juliet are fictitious characters, and so cannot “fall in love” in reality. Putting that aside, I think the statement can be said to be false, because “falling in love” is an event that happens, whereas not falling in love is the absence of an event. So, if William Shakespeare didn’t exist, Romeo and Juliet would not have existed, and so would not have fallen in love (the negation of the event of falling in love). So, I think the statement is false; Romeo and Juliet would not have fallen in love had Shakespeare not existed, because in the absence of them existing there would be an absence of them falling in love, so wouldn’t exist. It is only if you consider “not falling in love” to be a positive event that the statement becomes a non-truth-apt statement. For example, my glass in front of me is full of juice. If I finish the glass, it is not full of juice. That “not being full of juice” would be the same state as if the glass had never existed, as “not being full of juice” is a non-event. Or, to put it another way, the expression this non-glass is full of juice doesn’t make sense, but saying “this non-glass is not full of juice” does make sense, as not being full of juice is the mere absence of being full of juice.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      //So, forgive me if I am wrong, but does that mean that you think the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford was the correct one?//

                      No, it does not. If Dred Scott had been simply suing for his freedom while having lived his whole life in a slave state, then yes, he should have lost (because there’s simply no way to read the Constitution as having always forbidden slavery – if it had, then the 13th Amendment would mean absolutely nothing).

                      However, Scott had been brought into a free state (Illinois) by his first owner (Dr. Emerson). He was brought there with the full consent of Emerson, and so did not fall under the Fugitive Slave Law or the Fugitives Clause of the Constitution. Therefore, since slavery did not exist in Illinois, he could not possibly be “property” while there, and must have been a person (and a free person, at that, since Illinois law recognized no other kind). Thus, when he was brought back into slave territory, he could not simply “automatically” become a slave again, because no law (of any state, so far as I know) provided for a free man to become a slave (at least not without deliberately selling himself into slavery).

                      The Court decided wrongly on (at least) two major points. First, it held (with no justification whatsoever) that the Framers and their generation would have found the idea of a “Negro” as a citizen absurd and abhorrent – this can be summarily dismissed by simply pointing out (as the dissent did) that there were free blacks, some of whom even owned property, in at least some of the original 13 states (and could vote in five of them).

                      Second, it held (in the first ever use of the execrable doctrine of “substantive due process”) that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibited Congress from passing *any* law that would deprive a slaveholder of his property rights in his slaves – and this idea, that there were some rights so important that *no amount* of “process” would be as much process as was “due” to deprive them, would go on to plague the Court even to the present day. There are endless arguments about whether “SDP” is a valid doctrine or not, but suffice it to say that *at least* in this case, it is simply absurd to argue that the generation of the Framers would have understood the Due Process Clause to somehow, silently determine slaves in particular to be a special type of property that must be *absolutely inviolate*.

                      //I would like to go back to something you said about the change in interpretation in the word “equality” not being based on empirical information. //

                      I unfortunately don’t have time to go through this long paragraph line-by-line, but I do take your point about empirically-based beliefs about lack of equality being vulnerable to empirical proofs of equality. I agree, if the primary reason for thinking gay couples to be not “similarly situated” to straight couples were something about their psychological relationships, or some other “outcome-based” metric, then yes, data contradicting those assumptions could alter the landscape.

                      However, I think you miss on two points. First, new interpretations of Scripture are not new data – at least not in the sense that they compel a rational believer to reconsider his own interpretation (except in the case where new historical or linguistic data renders the old interpretation unsupportable). So, no, I think that if the generation that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment were to have been informed that a lot of people in the 21st Century think that Scripture *does not* prohibit homosexual acts, their conclusion would not be, “Hey, I guess maybe we’re wrong” – it would be, “Wow, there are a lot of people in the 21st Century who have a really absurd interpretation of Scripture.”

                      Second, I think you miss one of the key Natural Law arguments, which is (to use the Catholic terminology) “complementarity.” In other words, quite aside from “the function of the body and the nature of sex” (which are perfectly good Natural Law arguments that you mention), there is the observable, empirical fact that men and women have complementary attributes, leading to the conclusion that men are simply *made* to be with women, and vice versa. My goal here is merely to present this argument, not to defend it (since that would be a whole separate discussion), but I think it is (and was in the 1800’s) a fairly widespread, if often unconscious reason for heteronormativity – on this view, gay couples are not “similarly situated” to straight couples *simply because* they are not composed of a man and a woman. Again, I don’t want to get into it right now about whether this view is *correct* or not (though I do believe it) – I’m just saying that it’s a view I suspect was fairly common in the 1800’s, and not one that could possibly be affected by “new data” (since no data could possibly show that two men or two women are actually a man and a woman).

                      //If the poet sells the intellectual property of the poem to someone else, and they subsequently say that “gay” in the title it to mean homosexual, then it does, because they own the poem itself, and its meaning.//

                      I don’t think that’s the case. Purchasing a copyright gives you the right to copy, sell, and distribute the work, as well as create derivative works based on it – but those are purely legal rights, and they confer no particular metaphysical power over the meaning of the original. If someone purchased the rights to the Lord of the Rings, and then stated in a news interview that Frodo and Sam were a gay couple, that wouldn’t make it so, because that’s not how Tolkien wrote it. Or, to make it even clearer: Tolkien expressly denied that LotR was an allegory for World War II. No subsequent owner of the copyright could come along and say, “Yeah, actually it is.”

                      Certainly, the new owner of this hypothetical poem would have every right to *say* that “gay” in the title means homosexual, but that would (and should) carry no more weight (and quite possibly much less) than some literature professor saying the same thing.

                      Does whoever currently owns the copyright to the “I Have A Dream” speech have the right to simply declare, by fiat, that the speech exhorts in favor of (or against) affirmative action, such that all schoolchildren learning about the speech must be taught that it has that meaning?

                      //In point of fact, I would think it more reasonable for the legal document to be altered as the meaning of the word alters.//

                      What if there is no one with the legal power to alter the document? We already discussed that in the case of a will (where no one has the power to alter the words of the will after the death of the testator), and there, you agreed that the meaning was “permanently authored” by the testator, and could not be altered.

                      Why should there be one interpretive rule for documents that *can* be altered, and one for those that can’t? Does it matter how difficult the document would be to alter? I.e. should there be more of an obligation to “update” a document that can easily be changed than for one that is extraordinarily difficult to change? Why not just have the one rule (what you’ve referred to as the “permanently authored” rule) for all documents?

                      Take, again, the Constitution – it is *incredibly* difficult to pass an Amendment. But, by your theory, words in a document change their meaning to keep up with public usage, so the Constitution would require constant amendment *just to mean the same thing over time.* Also, in the case of a corporate charter, in order to “update” its words to reflect changes in meaning, the corporation might have to wholly dissolve and reincorporate.

                      Besides, I’ll tell you exactly what would happen if your interpretive principle (that legal documents should change their wording if their words change public meaning) were actually adopted – lawyers would just start including a boilerplate clause at the end of every document: “All words and phrases in this document are to be interpreted according to their meaning as of [insert date here].”

                      //I don’t agree that in the case of World Vision, if you as an employee go against God’s will in another aspect of your personal life, that you undermine the effort of helping poor children, even spiritually.//

                      There’s a big difference between what you might call “incidental” sin (i.e. the sort of sins that people commit because they lack the faith to believe they’re wrong or lack the discipline to refrain) and deliberate invocation of evil. I was speaking specifically of your example of a Satanist, who, by definition, is deliberately *inviting* evil spirits to influence his life.

                      //Perhaps you can at least see why I consider it hypocrisy for Catholics to complain about Eich being fired, while gay people are being fired from Catholic or Christian organisations?//

                      Not really, but like I said, I don’t mind agreeing to disagree.

                      Oh, and at least for Catholic organizations, I’m not aware of anyone who has ever been fired merely for *being gay* – that is, for having an intrinsic sexual and/or romantic attraction to members of the same sex. It’s always for what they *do* – e.g. being in a gay relationship, or publicly advocating positions that are opposed to Church teaching on homosexuality. [I’m not trying to contrast with Eich here – just making a separate point. To the Church, *being* gay is not sinful – choosing to commit homosexual *acts* is.]

                      //But it is a subjective opinion that what makes us human is our DNA.//

                      OK, sure, but I’m not aware of any criterion ever advanced that would systematically exclude all people of one race while including those of another race. Let’s say you pick “intelligence,” and let’s say (counterfactually) that black people are of lower average intelligence than white people – you’d still have some black people who would fall above the line, and some white people who would fall below it. The same would hold true for any other criteria you’d care to list (except, of course, skin color itself, but that’s begging the question).

                      //Where does one determine which % similarity to “me” is the cut off point for consideration of what is “Human”.//

                      No idea – but no matter where you put the cutoff, it wouldn’t neatly divide along racial lines. Evidence shows that any given black guy and any given white guy are likely to share *more* DNA in common than (for example) an Italian and a Norwegian (who are both, in racial terms, “white”).

                      //But, if reasoning capacity is the criteria by which you decide whether someone is human, then Bob is worthy of less respect than Larry.//

                      OK, maybe. I guess I should have said, “*Given that* we agree that Bob and Larry are both human, and that humanity is binary (i.e. either you’re human or you’re not – no one is ‘more human’)…”

                      //And, how much less intelligent would an organism have to be for you to consider them less worthy than a human?//

                      Well, since I’m an unabashed “human exceptionalist” (i.e. I think that there is something uniquely worthy about humanity, inherently and independent of any scientifically measurable attribute), the question is irrelevant to me. All other organisms are less worthy than humans. (And DNA is merely a way to *tell* if someone is human – it’s not the *reason* humans are special.)

                      //See, I think slavery is always and everywhere hateful.//

                      I see the problem now – I think that whatever is hateful is wrong, but not everything that is wrong is hateful. You seem to have to opposite view (or at least believe that everything wrong is hateful). I think slavery is always wrong, but if it is done out of an honestly and reasonably mistaken belief about some relevant fact, then it isn’t hateful.

                      //Furthermore, wouldn’t the logic of your position on black people mean that you think slavery was a reasonable institution based on the information that they had available?//

                      Do you mean reasonable, or do you mean right? I think that *if* certain facts were honestly believed to be true, based on a good-faith assessment of available evidence, then it is possible slavery was (at some time, in some place) a *reasonable* institution. See George Fitzhugh’s “Cannibals All!” for a very thought-provoking (though ultimately wrong) defense of slavery, written (so far as I can tell) in complete good faith and with benevolence towards those he thought should be slaves (who, notably, were not limited to only blacks).

                      On the other hand, no matter what the honest, but mistaken beliefs of the time, slavery could never be *right.*

                      //If we were to discover in the future that, for example, horses were sentient, intelligent creatures, which we have mistakenly enslaves, I would regard what we are doing now as hateful with the new knowledge I have.//

                      See above, re: human exceptionalism… but I get what you’re trying to say.

                      //Firstly, in a certain sense Romeo does not fall in love with Juliet anyway, because Romeo and Juliet are fictitious characters, and so cannot “fall in love” in reality.//

                      I guess I was insufficiently clear. I was positing the setting of R&J as a “world” created by Shakespeare in the same sense that (I believe) our world was created by God. I speak of their actions or non-actions in relation to the reality of *that* world, not this one.

                      //I think the statement can be said to be false, because “falling in love” is an event that happens, whereas not falling in love is the absence of an event.//

                      OK, sure, so in a purely trivial sense, we can say R&J would not have fallen in love if Shakespeare had not existed, and in the same trivial sense, we can say that the universe would not be governed by Natural Law if God did not exist, because there would *be* no universe to be governed by anything.

                      So, perhaps to get at the real meaning of the question, “Would there still be Natural Law without God?” I should give the following analogy – Assuming Shakespeare did not exist, *and yet* a play named “Romeo & Juliet” was still written, would R&J have still fallen in love? The equivalent question, of course, is – Assuming God did not exist, *and yet* there were still a universe, would it be governed by Natural Law?

                      Then the absurdity becomes apparent. If there were somehow R&J without Shakespeare, we couldn’t make *any* deductions about it, because nothing we know about it would be valid. Maybe R&J are a dog and a cat. Maybe they’re two warring nations. Maybe the play is some postmodernist thing, and the title bears no relation at all to the plot – heck, maybe it’s one of those post-post-modernist mindscrews, and there *is* no plot, just two guys with underwear on their heads, whacking each other with live salmon.

                      Likewise, if there were a universe without God, we’d have no reason to deduce anything at all about it, because nothing we know about *this* universe would necessarily be valid. Maybe this other universe has a much stronger or weaker gravitational force. Maybe it’s not made up of the same elementary particles. Maybe there’s not even any such thing as “space” or “time.”

                      Now, of course, I’m assuming arguendo that the *actual* universe *was* created by God. Obviously, we can disagree about that, but your initial assertion (that Natural Law is posited to exist even in the absence of God) includes a counterfactual subjunctive that assumes theism as its reality, so I’m just discussing it from that perspective.

                    • Tom

                      //No, it does not. If Dred Scott had been simply suing for his freedom while having lived his whole life in a slave state, then yes, he should have lost (because there’s simply no way to read the Constitution as having always forbidden slavery – if it had, then the 13th Amendment would mean absolutely nothing).//

                      Thank you for explaining Dredd Scott. Buy my fundamental point remains – if an “Originalist” interpretation of a founding document were to require some abhorrent action, then a new and less wicked interpretation should be substituted.

                      //However, I think you miss on two points. First, new interpretations of Scripture are not new data – at least not in the sense that they compel a rational believer to reconsider his own interpretation//

                      From what I have read, many of these new Scriptural interpretations hinge on certain analysis of the meaning of words in the text. If I have a certain word in a certain text which has long been interpreted to mean “flower”, but I come along and say, actually, no, I think this word you think means “flower” means “rose”, because in the context of this other text here it means “rose”, that would count as a new interpretation based on evidence. Even if both texts originally existed, it could be that weight of tradition or prejudice resulted in the two instances of “rose” not being connected. Someone could still apprehend the modern interpretation as new evidence. (For the record, as a non-Christian, I think it is obvious that Scripture condemns same-sex sexual activity).

                      //could possibly be affected by “new data” (since no data could possibly show that two men or two women are actually a man and a woman).//

                      Ah yes, but I deny that that “complementarity” is an empirical fact, so do not think that it would count under this consideration. Or, if it were so considered, I think that it could equally be argued as an empirical fact that two men and two women have “complementary attributes”. So, I could argue that two men or two women are actually a man and a woman in terms of complementarity, because such complementarity does not exist. Or that two men or two women are actually a man and woman in terms of complementarity, as they are complementary as a man and a woman are complementary. One again would get into an argument over what attributes are being considered “complementary”. The most basic way would be “complementary to procreative capacity”, but even in this capacity I deny that such a thing is empirical, but rather an interpretation of data that can be subject to new data or other interpretation/argument. In that sense, even an 1800’s understanding of “complementary” could be reviewed by saying that actually there is this new evidence x, y, or z that means that we now appreciate that even in the capacity that the 1800s understood “complementarity” between men and women, two men or two women are also complementary. For example, if evidence was found of two men or two women interacting in a romantic relationship in an “emotionally complementary” way, then using the distinction of “emotional complementarity” would have to include same-sex couples.

                      //If someone purchased the rights to the Lord of the Rings, and then stated in a news interview that Frodo and Sam were a gay couple, that wouldn’t make it so, because that’s not how Tolkien wrote it.//

                      But if they changed “Frodo” to “Robert” in every instance, then they could be called a gay couple. If “Frodo” was changed to “Frobo”, they could also be called a gay couple. If “Frodo” was changed to “Frodo”, identical in name, but different in character, then they could be a gay couple. The creation of the new work from the old can occur even if the text does not change.

                      //Does whoever currently owns the copyright to the “I Have A Dream” speech have the right to simply declare, by fiat, that the speech exhorts in favor of (or against) affirmative action, such that all schoolchildren learning about the speech must be taught that it has that meaning?//

                      Yes.

                      //We already discussed that in the case of a will (where no one has the power to alter the words of the will after the death of the testator), and there, you agreed that the meaning was “permanently authored” by the testator, and could not be altered.//

                      But my point about the will was not that the words could not be altered, but that the meaning could not be altered. In that respect, substituting “happy and carefree” for “gay” would alter the words, but preserve the meaning.

                      //Why not just have the one rule (what you’ve referred to as the “permanently authored” rule) for all documents?//

                      Because documents like the will relate to the disposal and use of property. As far as I know, no one makes a will and gives copyright over the will to another person. I suppose the issue is one of authority over interpretation. I think things like the Constitution are intended to be reinterpreted, because the “ownership” of it is transferred to each new generation, whereas the will is fixed because it is never owned by the executors, merely enacted by them. Now, if someone were to give the copyright of a will’s contents (rather than just ownership of the document), then yes, I would see it as acceptable to reinterpret the meaning. Certainly, you could not say that “Uncle Bob meant this thing x when the will was written”, but that is different to saying “The will does not say x”.

                      //But, by your theory, words in a document change their meaning to keep up with public usage, so the Constitution would require constant amendment *just to mean the same thing over time.* //

                      I think that would add great clarity. Or write it in a dead language like Latin, which does not evolve or change. After all, to escape the transitory nature of living languages, the Catholic Church writes its main documents in Latin.

                      //lawyers would just start including a boilerplate clause at the end of every document: “All words and phrases in this document are to be interpreted according to their meaning as of [insert date here].”//

                      An excellent idea.

                      //I’m not aware of anyone who has ever been fired merely for *being gay*//

                      I was using “gay” in the political/social sense of “gay” – that is affirming one’s sexual orientation is not wrong, embracing it, and acting on it. In that sense, I was using the term much like “pro-choice” or “Democrat” or “Muslim”. People have been fired for being gay.

                      //Not really, but like I said, I don’t mind agreeing to disagree.//

                      My point is that I don’t think that a gay Maths teacher at a Catholic school should be fired because they are gay, if they are good at teaching Maths, and consider it the same as firing a tech executive being fired for not embodying “pro-gay” sentiment. That is, I think you are making an artificial (and what appears, self-serving) distinction between Christian charities and organisations (like World Vision that exist because of their ethos) and pro-gay organisations (like Mozilla do not exist because of their ethos). I do not agree that “the reason for their existence” is a morally valid distinction to make. I also think it is hypocritical to characterise Eich’s firing as “force” but not to do the same for the firing of people in same-sex marriages. This is what led me to first comment on your comment; that Eich is no less “forced” to accept same-sex marriage than a pro-same-sex marriage person is “forced” to accept Catholic doctrine when working for a Catholic organisation.

                      Question; If a gay maths teacher is better at teaching maths than a Catholic maths teacher, would it still be appropriate to fire the gay maths teacher. He may be failing as a Catholic, but not as a teacher, but the Catholic maths teacher is failing at being a maths teacher in comparison to the gay maths teacher. Both teachers are deficient in a criteria that defines “Catholic maths” teacher, yet I would argue that it makes more sense to retain the gay maths teacher, as the primary purpose of being a school is to teach.

                      //The same would hold true for any other criteria you’d care to list (except, of course, skin color itself, but that’s begging the question).//

                      Not necessarily – a “mark of Cain”-like issue about skin colour could be used in that context. That skin colour is an indicator of sin etc. That would not necessarily indicate “hate”.

                      //Evidence shows that any given black guy and any given white guy are likely to share *more* DNA in common than (for example) an Italian and a Norwegian (who are both, in racial terms, “white”).//

                      Okay, let us take that standard, and say that it is not skin colour, but rather this particular % difference that happens to exclude most of race x, but also some of race y or z. That again would depend on the definition of “race”. Using a particular % similarity of DNA is really no less unjust than skin colour.

                      // You seem to have to opposite view (or at least believe that everything wrong is hateful). //

                      Yes, that seems to be the nub of this issue. I think that everything wrong is hateful, but not all hateful things are wrong.

                      //Then the absurdity becomes apparent. If there were somehow R&J without Shakespeare, we couldn’t make *any* deductions about it, because nothing we know about it would be valid. Maybe R&J are a dog and a cat. Maybe they’re two warring nations.//

                      We couldn’t make any deductions about the play, that is certainly true, however the question “Would Romeo and Juliet have fallen in love had Shakespeare not existed” is still answerable and intelligible. If Romeo and Juliet were a cat and mouse, we can answer that “no, Romeo and Juliet do not fall in love if Shakespeare did not exist”. We can answer this two ways; we can say that the Romeo and Juliet who are the cat and mouse do not fall in love, but we can also say that the Romeo and Juliet who we know as Montague and Capulet also do not fall in love, as they do not exist. We can even go so far as to say now, that if Shakespeare had not existed, is it possible that Romeo and Juliet could have fallen in love? And the answer must be yes, as Romeo and Juliet might not be a cat and mouse, but rather a Montague and Capulet.

                      Hmm, perhaps the question is “If Shakespeare did not exist, would Shakespeare’s Romeo and Shakespeare’s Juliet fall in love?’. The answer to this must be no, for the reason given in my previous response.

                      Or am a being obtuse on this?

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      //if an “Originalist” interpretation of a founding document were to require some abhorrent action, then a new and less wicked interpretation should be substituted. //

                      If you think that jurisprudence is about deciding how a case *ought* to turn out, then sure – just be aware that if you go that route, you’re not living in a democracy anymore. You’re living in a Platonic Republic ruled by nine, black-robed, unelected Philosopher-Kings.

                      If, on the other hand, you think jurisprudence is about determining what the law *is* (independent of what it ought to be), then whether an originalist interpretation leads to a good outcome or a bad one is irrelevant. If a true determination of what the law is leads to a bad outcome, that means the law ought to be changed via the democratic process, not that its meaning ought to be ignored in favor of one that produces a “better” outcome.

                      See, originalists aren’t originalists because we think the Framers (or their generation) were smarter, wiser, or more just than we are today (though in some ways it’s possible they were. It’s also not because we think that America somehow “belongs to” the Framers, and should be run according to their principles. [By the way, from here on in, when I say, “the Framers,” please understand me to mean the entire generation of voting Americans, not specifically the members of the Constitutional Convention.]

                      Rather, originalism springs from the first principles of a democratic republic. Let me walk through it:

                      1) In a democratic republic, government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

                      2) Any government that purports to rely on “implied” or “inferred” consent of the governed in fact vests power in whomever has the power to make such inferences – not in the governed.

                      3) Therefore, in a democratic republic, government is legitimate if and only if the laws include all and only those laws expressly consented to by the people or their duly-sworn representatives.

                      4) The means by which the people or their duly-sworn representatives demonstrate express consent or opposition to a proposed law is by voting.

                      5) This right to be governed by all and only those laws to which the people collectively consent is an inalienable right – that is, the people *cannot* surrender this right, even by their own consent. [I.e. there can be no vote that installs a “dictator for life” like Caesar or Hitler. This is also the root principle of the Nondelegation Doctrine, which says that Congress cannot simply pass a law that endows some other person or body with the authority to make laws.]

                      6) A law whose terms are unknown to the electorate, or are subject to change without further legislation derives its meaning from a source other than the express will of the electorate, and is therefore illegitimate

                      7) If the meaning of a term can change without legislative action, then the law itself changes without legislative action

                      8) Therefore, if the meaning of a term can change without legislative action, then the law is illegitimate

                      9) The only meaning on which the electorate can deliberate and vote is the meaning which they may reasonably understand

                      10) In conclusion, the meaning of a term must be the meaning that was voted on, not the meaning that some later era may attach to it. If the Constitution means something different now than it did when it was ratified by the voters, then the Supreme Law of the Land is a law that no majority ever actually voted for!

                      //Was the Emancipation Proclamation Constitutional?//

                      No, it wasn’t, but it was also of no *practical* (as opposed to rhetorical and moral) importance, so it doesn’t much matter. The Emancipation Proclamation only purported to free slaves held in rebellious territories – in other words, only in those territories that wouldn’t recognize Lincoln’s authority in the first place. It was a propaganda piece (though a good one).

                      //From what I have read, many of these new Scriptural interpretations hinge on certain analysis of the meaning of words in the text.//

                      Sure, absolutely. I suppose what I was trying to say is that such new linguistic analysis would be only *persuasive* evidence, not *controlling* evidence. In other words, it may *convince* someone to change their views, but you usually couldn’t say that it would be *irrational* to *not* be convinced – because there’s still a non-negligible amount of evidence going the other way, and because, at least for a Catholic, the Magisterium of the Church constitutes evidence in and of itself.

                      //Ah yes, but I deny that that “complementarity” is an empirical fact, so do not think that it would count under this consideration. Or, if it were so considered, I think that it could equally be argued as an empirical fact that two men and two women have “complementary attributes”.//

                      True enough. One can always change an argument by disputing the meaning of the terms. I don’t mean to make that sound dismissive – I just mean that if my version of “complementarity” is an observable, gender-bound fact, and your version is not observable fact, or focuses on non-gender-bound characteristics, then of course we’d be talking past one another.

                      Since there’s no argument I can make about the “true” meaning of complementarity that doesn’t rely on Scripture or Magisterium for its support, I’ll just let this one lie.

                      //The creation of the new work from the old can occur even if the text does not change.//

                      At least in the law, that’s simply incorrect. For something to be a new work, it must vary in some significant way from the old work (and “work” in this case is read as “fixation in a tangible medium” – i.e. what the text *says* is the “work” not what the author/owner/whatever says it *means*).

                      If Frodo were *actually* rewritten as a completely different character (in more ways than just suddenly being gay), then you might have something, but you’d also have to rewrite large portions of the text to accommodate this new character, and what you’d be left with wouldn’t *be* The Lord of the Rings – it would be a completely separate novel published under the same title.

                      //If you took over a business that had as part of its ethos “equality” as understood to mean “pro-SSM”, but you wanted to change it to just “equality” meaning racial equality, how would you do it without reforming the company?//

                      I’m not sure I could. Admittedly, corporate law is not my core expertise, so it’s possible there’s some way to achieve the desired effect (amendment of the charter) via a supermajority vote of the shareholders, or something like that, but I have no idea. I suspect I’d be stuck with the original meaning.

                      //Yes. [With reference to my I Have A Dream question]//

                      Well, that’s bold, but I don’t understand how it’s workable. History is history, and MLK meant what he meant. Kids will be taught what *he meant* not what some copyright holder says it means. Same as no one could buy the rights to Mein Kampf and insist that really, no matter how it sounds, it’s really truly not anti-Semitic (well, they could insist, but no one would play along).

                      //In that respect, substituting “happy and carefree” for “gay” would alter the words, but preserve the meaning.//

                      But there is no one alive who has the legal *authority* to change the words. Therefore, the only two options are A) allow the word to mean what it meant when it was written, no matter how its usage changes, or B) give the will an effect that the testator never intended or wanted (which runs totally counter to the very purpose of a will).

                      //I think things like the Constitution are intended to be reinterpreted, because the “ownership” of it is transferred to each new generation, whereas the will is fixed because it is never owned by the executors, merely enacted by them.//

                      This is where my long bit about originalism, up above, comes in. The Constitution is not some aspirational document – it is a *law,* and therefore it must mean whatever meaning was actually voted on, until and unless people vote to change it.

                      //Now, if someone were to give the copyright of a will’s contents//

                      I don’t want to sound overly critical or arrogant, but it is becoming rather clear that you have a skewed concept of what copyright is. Copyright (unlike patent) is a set of rights relating to the *form* of the work, not the underlying *ideas* – it is actually a core principle of copyright law that no one can copyright an idea.

                      So, the copyright to a will would be pretty near worthless (unless the person was famous enough that replicas of his will could be sold for decent money) because all it would give you the right to do is to copy the will (or any part of it), to profit from the sale or display of the will or its copies, to make “derivative works” based on the will, and to prohibit others from doing the same.

                      There is no such thing as a legal right of (re)interpretation. And, in my opinion at least, the only *moral* right of interpretation would be based on authorship, not ownership.

                      //Or write it in a dead language like Latin, which does not evolve or change.//

                      Not a bad idea at all, to remove *any* possible doubt – but I don’t see why being written in a language that evolves *precludes* the meaning from staying the same. Shakespeare wrote in the same language we use now, but in some of his plays or poems, he’d speak of sailing in a “bark.” Now, today, the sailing vessel would be spelled “barque” and “bark” would mean either the sharp sound a dog makes, or the tough outer layer of a tree. If we read one of Shakespeare’s original folios, must we conclude that people sailed in dog noises or in tree-skins? Or can we conclude that “bark” means “boat” because that’s what Shakespeare meant when he wrote it?

                      //I was using “gay” in the political/social sense of “gay” – that is affirming one’s sexual orientation is not wrong, embracing it, and acting on it.//

                      I figured that’s what you meant – I just thought it was a distinction worth making (because it’s something so many people misunderstand about Catholic doctrine).

                      //I do not agree that “the reason for their existence” is a morally valid distinction to make.//

                      OK, fair enough. We disagree, but it appears we disagree at a basic level, so there’s not much point in hashing this one point out any further – at this point we’ve got nowhere to go except for “Am not!” “Are too!” “Am not!” “Are too!” :-p

                      //Eich is no less “forced” to accept same-sex marriage than a pro-same-sex marriage person is “forced” to accept Catholic doctrine when working for a Catholic organisation.//

                      I see your main point, and like I said, I think we’ve reached an impasse. I’d just like to reiterate, however, that most Catholic organizations put the requirement of “adherence to Catholic moral teaching” very clearly on the table when hiring (and that teaching is equally clear as to whether SSM is in conformity). Mozilla, I strongly suspect, did not do Eich the same courtesy (of telling him explicitly that he would be expected to support SSM).

                      //Both teachers are deficient in a criteria that defines “Catholic maths” teacher, yet I would argue that it makes more sense to retain the gay maths teacher, as the primary purpose of being a school is to teach.//

                      I would argue that it makes sense to fire both, and if you have to keep one, keep the sub-par teacher – because the sub-par teacher can learn to be a better teacher, but the gay teacher isn’t going to stop being gay.

                      //Not necessarily – a “mark of Cain”-like issue about skin colour could be used in that context. That skin colour is an indicator of sin etc.//

                      I think you might mean the curse of Ham, not the Mark of Cain – but that’s based on *overwhelmingly bad* Scriptural exegesis (not on your part, I mean, but on the part of those who actually believe such things).

                      //Using a particular % similarity of DNA is really no less unjust than skin colour.//

                      Perhaps so, and I guess that’s one more reason I’m a human exceptionalist. Because any empirical characteristic you could use to define “degrees” of moral worth would automatically lead to that sort of stratification. I believe “that all men are created equal.”

                      //Or am a being obtuse on this?//

                      Not obtuse – just not recognizing the distinction between metaphysics and epistemology. Metaphysics is about “what is.” Epistemology is about “what we can know.”

                      I’m not saying that the two questions (about Natural Law and about Romeo and Juliet) are *metaphysically* indeterminate. As you point out, of course it must be the case that they either *do* [exist and] fall in love, or they *do not* (and either Natural Law *would* exist in God’s absence, or it *would not*).

                      However, what I’m saying is that the questions are *epistemologically* unknowable. If Romeo and Juliet are cat and mouse, they probably do not fall in love (though I guess they *could* depending on how weird the play is), and if they are Montague and Capulet, then they probably do (though they might not). But with all the data that we have *or could possibly have* in this factual universe, we *could not possibly* have *any* reason to believe that one of those scenarios is more likely than the other.

                      Likewise, if the counterfactual universe without God is very similar to this factual universe, then it *probably* has Natural Law, while if it is radically different, or nonexistent, then it probably (or definitely, in the latter case) does not. But with all the data we have *or could possibly have* in this factual universe, we *could not possibly* have *any* reason to believe that one of those scenarios is more likely than the other.

                      So, the questions both undoubtedly *have* answers, in an absolute sense – but those answers are literally, logically impossible for us to determine.

                    • Tom

                      A few quick thoughts, as I would like to wind this up before the weekend.

                      I am more libertarian than democrat (you may have figured as much), so the thought of nine unelected judges governing society doesn’t, of itself, fill me with dread. Much as I disagree with most of what the neoreactionary movement says, they do have some valid criticisms of democracy (as did Pope Emeritas B XVI when he said that right and wrong were not determined by majority vote).

                      As is quite obvious, I am not a lawyer, and certainly no expert on US law, all my arguments here were not intended as legal arguments, so much as the philosophy behind these concepts. So when talking about “copyright” I do probably mean intellectual property or patents.

                      // Or can we conclude that “bark” means “boat” because that’s what Shakespeare meant when he wrote it?//

                      I don’t see any contradiction between recognising what the original author meant when they wrote it, and what it means now, to us. The argument above over “equality” etc, as well as “planet”.

                      Regarding the metaphysics vs epistemology debate; it is all very interesting but is really quite beyond the ambit of this comment section. I think I will let it lie there.

                      It is entirely unrelated to either this thread, or what else we were discussing, but I couldn’t help noticing in one of your other comments that you said that Judaism is not false, it just does not have the complete truth, and compared it to someone not using the entirety of the gospel. I would like it noted that I think this is incorrect. While it may be true that something is not ” false” by being only part of the truth, what makes Judaism “false” (or Christianity that does not use the entire Bible) is the claim that it is entire truth. So, with Protestantism, for example, the falseness comes in the certainty that it is the entire truth, not only part of the truth. If I said to you “I ate a banana today”, it would not be a false statement, even if only the partial truth. However if I said I only ate a banana today, my statement is false, even though the element of truth (that I ate a banana) is unchanged. As I understand it, Judaism claims to be ” the entire truth” about God. I do not see how therefore it is not false.

                      Now, as combined we have written many thousands of words, far more than the above article, and on subjects completely divorced from the one at hand, I suggest we leave this business here. Have a happy (non-aristotelian) weekend. I shall leave the last words to you.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      Well, I thank you very much for an enjoyable and intellectually stimulating conversation. I wish you a happy (non-Aristotelian) weekend as well, and I hope that you continue to raise the candor, civility, and caliber of debate on these boards.

                      Pax tecum.

                    • Tom

                      A few quick thoughts, as I would like to wind this up before the weekend.

                      I am more libertarian than democrat (you may have figured as much), so the thought of nine unelected judges governing society doesn’t, of itself, fill me with dread. Much as I disagree with most of what the neoreactionary movement says, they do have some valid criticisms of democracy (as did Pope Emeritas B XVI when he said that right and wrong were not determined by majority vote).

                      As is quite obvious, I am not a lawyer, and certainly no expert on US law, all my arguments here were not intended as legal arguments, so much as the philosophy behind these concepts. So when talking about “copyright” I do probably mean intellectual property or patents.

                      // Or can we conclude that “bark” means “boat” because that’s what Shakespeare meant when he wrote it?//

                      I don’t see any contradiction between recognising what the original author meant when they wrote it, and what it means now, to us. The argument above over “equality” etc, as well as “planet”.

                      Regarding the metaphysics vs epistemology debate; it is all very interesting but is really quite beyond the ambit of this comment section. I think I will let it lie there.

                      It is entirely unrelated to either this thread, or what else we were discussing, but I couldn’t help noticing in one of your other comments that you said that Judaism is not false, it just does not have the complete truth, and compared it to someone not using the entirety of the gospel. I would like it noted that I think this is incorrect. While it may be true that something is not ” false” by being only part of the truth, what makes Judaism “false” (or Christianity that does not use the entire Bible) is the claim that it is entire truth. So, with Protestantism, for example, the falseness comes in the certainty that it is the entire truth, not only part of the truth. If I said to you “I ate a banana today”, it would not be a false statement, even if only the partial truth. However if I said I only ate a banana today, my statement is false, even though the element of truth (that I ate a banana) is unchanged. As I understand it, Judaism claims to be ” the entire truth” about God. I do not see how therefore it is not false.

                      Now, as combined we have written many thousands of words, far more than the above article, and on subjects completely divorced from the one at hand, I suggest we leave this business here. Have a happy (non-aristotelian) weekend. I shall leave the last words to you.

                    • Michael Jones

                      Whom would argue that sometimes it is right to violate the constitution ? That seems radical and insane on the face of it.

                    • Michael Jones

                      ok that was masterful

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      Why thank you!

                    • Michael Jones

                      Your a good lawyer and very patient to argue with this troll despite his complete loss on all points several threads earlier. I can surmise you actually work in contract law while I am somewhat verse I admit it is not as strong as my tort law or wills and trust and criminal law.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      Thanks, though I honestly don’t think Tom was trolling – just very determined to make his points, in a firm but courteous way.

                      I’m actually in the process of looking for my first job after law school, so nope, I don’t work in contract law – but I had a very good Contracts professor! Constitutional law is my real passion though.

                    • Michael Jones

                      Side not WRONG read the bill of rights slaves are not classified as BLACK SLAVES. They actually classify just slaves because while most slaves were black some were still from indiana and other parts of the world. You have a very racist view of history ?

                    • Michael Jones

                      I believe you are right under the law because contract terms are often bound in the language as it is written at the time. By often I mean unless judge or finder of fact says differently or as subject to UCC or other doctrines of common law. Again this a point in which is has been exhausted of excuses and yet I don’t even need to look to see he will continue on for many many lines.

                    • Michael Jones

                      No actually it does not if you write the word EQUALITY on a contract or paper the court will largely dismiss is because it is vague and has no significance. It can’t be measured on it’s own the would have to wait you to later define what you meant by that word if you do not them any based on that would likely fail or be “void for vagueness” as they often say in contracts.

                    • Michael Jones

                      Well said if he were rational this would probably have closed off further debate

                    • Michael Jones

                      His position is not honest
                      The catholic church by law had no choice but to terminate for a breach of contract otherwise other contracts and similar contracts could be made void. This would make their employment practices worthless. just so you know.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      To be honest, I’m not entirely sure what you’re responding to in my post… You’re right on the money about the contract issue for Catholic employers, but I wasn’t discussing them (in this particular post that you replied to).

                      Over the course of our week-long colloquy, it became quite clear to me that Tom wasn’t trying to assert that it was *legally* indefensible for Catholic employers to fire “practicing” homosexuals unless it was also OK for Mozilla to fire Eich (which is I think perhaps what you’re responding against). He was (I think) mostly arguing that it was a *morally* indefensible double standard (and that therefore Catholics should either stop defending Eich, or *let* those contracts you reference become void). Obviously I disagree with that conclusion, but I do think his position was rationally defensible and intellectually honest.

                      Thanks for the support anyway! And thanks for the follow!

                  • Michael Jones

                    IF by force you mean willing form the objective manifestation to be bound into a contract for employment of their free will and adhere to the terms set in said contract for so long as they work for that employer then … yes force I guess.

              • fredx2

                there was a political debate in the country over same sex marriage. Being in support of traditional marriage is a thing that many people of good will and good character do. It has no moral taint, not in the least. Yet the bullyboys have attempted to pose as moral superioors, this despite the fact they seek to use children’s lives as accessories to their own in many cases. Children definitely come last to these people. You have now taken the Soviet view, that all political ideas can be punished in the personal sphere. Congratulations.

                Ever read Harrison Bergeron? You want us to live in that world

                • Tom

                  //Brandon Eich was made an example of in one of history’s most mean spirited moves.//

                  I agree it was mean spirited, but no less mean spirited than firing someone for entering a same-sex marriage. That in the case of the latter such firing could be more reasonably expected (a dubious claim; from what I have read, most of these situations did not involve signing explicit documents detailing repudiation of non-Catholic activity) does not ameliorate the mean spiritedness of the firing. My argument with Anthony is how one can reasonably be expected to act when one is employed as CEO for a company whose ethos includes “equality”. I am not opening a second front with you.

                  • Michael Jones

                    the important thing is they breached an employment contract. They were being nice and not even suing those persons for additional damages. Your misuse of the word equality which often when used for LGBTQPSI purposes means anything and nothing is a common socialist and communist tactic. There is no such thing as equality especially where they are demonstrably different to use the word equality in that context is intellectually dishonest.

                • Michael Jones

                  You use the word promise which is correct but the important thing is they breached an employment contract. They were being nice and not even suing those persons for additional damages.

              • Michael Jones

                Just not in India China the middle East Russia or any country they do business in that has similar or worse opinions then Eich……..

          • Asmondius

            I am not aware of people being fired from Catholic organizations for merely being homosexual. In fact, a salient point in some of the resulting lawsuits is that the Catholic organization knew the person was a homosexual. Your point is specious because those fired knew that they were expected to conform to Catholic moral standards as a condition of employment, as all the employees are. I doubt that any organization requires employees to swear allegiance to sodomy.

        • Franks Trate Writes

          Yes you are right. The balance has changed and now it is the homosexuals who ARE the bullies.

    • Raymond Rice

      another 19th century comment from someone whose head is in the clouds

    • Parque_Hundido

      Are you suggesting that anti-gay bigotry be given a special carve-out in civil rights? That anti-gay bigots be given protected class status?

      These are horrible ideas.

    • Tom

      “Live in bondage to homosexuality.”

      …what?

  • JP

    There is an old saying, “What goes around comes around”. Most gays that I’ve known over the decades were neither activists nor were they filled with such vitriol. The activist gays, like other radicals, will eventually over-reach. Overall, gays make up between 2-3% of the population. As a group, they are upper middle class to wealthy and are over-represented in the media, universities, entertainment, and politics. Their influence far outweighs their demographics. During last 40 years the activists steadily used their influence in the media, entertainment, journalism circles, and finance to create the political and social monolith they are today.

    Yet, there is another group that is poised to do the same thing – Muslims. Muslim activists have embedded themselves into the Beltway K-Street culture, the universities, the media, and finance. Their influence too far outweighs their demographics ( a population ratio of 8/310 or 2.5% of the population). And like gays they are considered a victimized minority. Both gays and Muslim activists are opposed to Western Culture and Christianity in general. They have formed an alliance of convenience in this regard. But, they are natural enemies. What will happen if the Muslim population begins to increase in proportion to the general population from say, 2.5% to 4%? Do gay activists really believe that the diminution of Christian tolerance and social influence will in the long run benefit them? Even in tolerant and Amsterdam Holland, the once decadant city known for its gay brothels and heroin boutiques immediately cleaned up its act once a Muslim mayor was elected. Muslim street gangs forced closings of brothels (both gay and hetero), assaulted aging gay couples in Amsterdam’s genteel neighborhoods.

    In their triumph bullying and harassment, gay activists forget who their real opponents are. And as they continue to alienate “middle America” and Christians they are consuming their store of social and political tolerance. Who will be there to defend them against the rising power and influence of Islam? The two (Gays and Muslims) are diametrically opposed. And Muslims play for keeps.

    • Fred

      It’s the Islamic culture to lie with the enemy and befriend until such time that you can rise up in a position of strength to strike down. It’s known as Taqiyya. It’s a lovely tradition of peace.

      • tom

        Muslims frown upon murdering the unborn while America delights in it.
        Europe’s just as bad and needs Muslim births to continue to exist.

    • Cap America

      Interesting comments.

    • DE-173

      The question is when will Ralphie have had enough?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvijyBIgazE

    • Patrick

      You mention more than once the tolerence Christians have for gays and how gays should be careful because that tolerence is waning. When exactly did we have it to begin with?

      Forty or fifty years ago, police commonly ran sting operations in gay bars and arrested everyone there if one couple held hands. We used to be placed on watchlists for ordering gay publications. We’ve had laws banning us from certain professions. We’ve been treated as mentally diseased. Those of us victimized by hate crimes often had law enforcement turn a blind eye. And all of this was done by “tolerant Christians”

      While things are better today, gays can be, and still are fired for being gay. Contrary to the “upper middle class” sterotype that you believe, gays and lesbians are much more likely to be in poverty than our hetero counterparts. We can be denied housing, tax benefits, visitation rights, survivor benefits, etc for being gay. All the while, “tolerant Christians” have been working to ingrain these issues even deeper into the legal code, and calling us all manner of vile things while doing so. The gains we’ve made in recent years have been in spite of “Christian tolerance”, not because of it.

      You act like Christians would be the lesser of the evils than Muslims. Frankly, when you take an honest look at the history, I don’t see how Muslim-Americans could be worse than Christian-Americans.

      • DE-173

        “While things are better today, gays can be, and still are fired for being gay. ”

        You can be fired for being bald or fat or not in the “clique” or for politely requesting not to be on a gay pride list:

        http://www.wnd.com/2002/10/15685/

        You can even be dismissed for contributing to a political campaign: Brendan Eich.

        • Patrick

          If that’s the only one of my points you can (feebly) argue with, does that mean you concede the rest?

          • John200

            The rest is dross. For example, you produced:
            “You act like Christians would be the lesser of the evils than Muslims.”

            Why would a Christian waste time answering such a garbage argument?

            What Christian would care what orifice you used to produce it?

            Do you see?

            • Patrick

              “What Christian would care what oriface you used to produce it?”
              I think you just proved my point. There’s no such thing as “Christian tolerence”. Thanks for demonstrating.

              • John200

                Again, unserious. You could have stopped at, “I think” because not even those two words are true.
                Do you see?

                • Patrick

                  All I see is someone who keeps trying to distract me from the fact he has nothing intelligent to say.

                  • John200

                    OK, so you know how to use a mirror.

                    Now what?

                  • ForChristAlone

                    why then are you bothering us at this site? get lost, cruiser.

                  • Franks Trate Writes

                    Your own comments were not nearly as smart as you think.

              • Franks Trate Writes

                Go and live in Saudi Arabia then. Why are you hanging around here if you hate everybody so much?

                • Patrick

                  By that logic, your stories of “Christian persecution” in this country are nothing compared to the countries where beheadings take place.

          • DE-173

            You confuse disinterest with forfeit. I know you think you are terribly bright and engaging, but you are torporific and soporific.

            • Patrick

              So you’re disinterested in decades of persecution of gays? Sounds about right. Then why should anyone care about your stories of “bullying”?

              • ForChristAlone

                This self pity is just part of your homosexual narcissism (and that’s empirically based science).

              • Franks Trate Writes

                Here it comes – the whole persecution complex, the whole homosexual paranoia delusion. Trouble is we’ve heard it all before. Far too often, Patrick you are a GAY-BORE.

                PS That’s not what disinterested means.

                • Patrick

                  Try again. Yours is a delusion. Ours is documented historical fact.

          • Franks Trate Writes

            He is not feeble he is just being logical. The fact is that far too many homosexuals get jobs just as a favour from other homosexuals. Victims? No way.

      • ForChristAlone

        Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it……………………..

        • Patrick

          Simply stating objective historical facts that people seem to forget,

          • Rich

            Are you a hate-filled Catholic? Sounds much more like it…

            • Patrick

              *sigh* Why do I bother expecting an ounce of self-awareness from you guys?

              • Sweet63

                true, much of the Church’s problem stems from its gay employees. I”ll give you that.

              • Franks Trate Writes

                Then don’t bother. Get lost.

          • JP

            Patrick, Western Culture was built upon the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church. The evolution of how the West has treated gays was a long but fruitful growth process that you will not find in any other culture (Asia, Hindu, African, and especially Muslim culture). Only in the West have gays gone from being a despised minority to a minority that exerts wide influence in the media, arts, and politics. As I wrote above, their influence is out of proportion to their numbers. Even in the Catholic Church, there is a sizable, group of gays that exerts a huge influence on its affairs.

            If you think Christianity is truly as evil as Islam, then I dare you to travel to Medina, or Tehran and voice your opinions. I’d give you 24 hours before you find yourself in prison awaiting a death sentence. You are a truly deluded person.

          • Franks Trate Writes

            No you’re just ranting on about your delusions.

        • Mike Waters

          I see no hatred from Patrick. It is sad how he is being treated here.

          • Augustus

            The response to Patrick by one or two people on this site is not a sophisticated response to the points he makes, but gay activists often behave this way by employing name-calling. This response may not address the substance of Patrick’s comment but it does have a point–to illustrate the lack of depth of much gay rhetoric. But don’t think this type of response is favored by everyone here.

            • tom

              Let’s not forget about the real victims…the children. Something’s screwy in our courts, right up to the strange Supreme Court. It approved, and American Woman embraced, the murder of over 55,000,000 babies in America. It’s now the American Way to murder or abuse our young.

              • Augustus

                Tom, I agree.

          • Franks Trate Writes

            Patrick’s long whinge is filled with hatred and is a classic specimen of how LGBTs pose as always the victim in history and in any situation. I am pleased to see that few people here are taken in by his tirade.

      • angelccorr

        And so turn around is fair play? If you thought all that you wrote was wrong, then why do homosexuals try the same tactics today?

      • Franks Trate Writes

        What a self-pitying whinger you are! In Muslim countries you would just be hanged or stoned. Maybe castrated.
        Denied jobs? Rubbish – gays are a rich, privileged class who have the tops jobs in academia, law, politics and the media. Denied homes? Wrong – gays own more property on average than hetersexuals do, They have never had to support kids like heterosexuals have.
        They may be denied a few lowpaid jobs such as scout master or nursery teacher for good reasons – because they are paedophiles. That is fair and right.
        There is no basis for your grievance about “tax benefits and survivor benefits” as homosexual relationships are NOT marriage, don’t form the basis of a society, are rarely faithful and therefore there is no need for society to reward them as marriage is rewarded.

        • Charlie McDonald

          Franks, gay people come from all different socioeconomic backgrounds.

          Saying that because Elton John has it easy that Billy Ray in Red Oak Texas doesn’t deserve to be treated as as human being with dignity and respect is illogical.

          There’s a lot of judgments here. What I’d like to ask you is one simple question: Do stable, long-lasting relationships benefit people and by benefitting those people, in turn benefits society?

          Morals are good. The gay community shares some of the great catholic values that help create stability and a better society for us all. I for one would like to see a lot more stability in the gay world so that we, as human beings, can contribute to society in a more delightful way.

          I look forward to the day when this ‘debate’ is settled so I can live my life as easily as you live yours instead of having to educate, defend and work hard to create understanding.

      • Marees1963

        BS!

        • Patrick

          Look it up. It’s all established history.

          • Asmondius

            ‘look it up’ = beeswax

            • Patrick

              Have you even tried? It’s not hard to find. You can start here if you really need to be spoon-fed:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

              • Asmondius

                Wikipedia = beeswax for those too lazy to get off of their duff

                • Patrick

                  Considering you were too lazy to even do that much, that definition does not reflect well on you.

                  • Asmondius

                    Since you admittedly use Wikipedia as your major source of knowledge, it’s clear who the shoe obviously fits.

                    • Patrick

                      1. Look up the word “admittedly”.
                      2. I learned this in an American Studies class in college. I could direct you to books if you’d prefer, but since you obviously can’t be bothered to even click on a link, I don’t see the point.
                      3. You still haven’t offered anything but insults to counter my original point.

                    • Asmondius

                      Oh – you had one? A link is not a point.

                    • Patrick

                      That in this country, Christians have had a history of particularly nasty discrimination against and persecution of gays. A number of Christians like yourself want to pretend it never happened.

                    • Asmondius

                      Yes, yes, for example that mean ol’ Catholic Church has stopped letting them have access to adolescent boys. And look how many communities have chased them out of public parks!

                    • Patrick

                      And here the ultimate problem is made plain. Your side can’t even be honest about objective historical facts. By maintaining such willful ignorance, you ensure your complete lack of understanding of the reasons and justifications for any of our action. If you weren’t living in denial, you might see that many of the actions described as “bullying” by the ignorant are, in fact, backlash against certain Christian’s efforts to continue that history of persecution. One could have a reasonable discussion as to whether some of that backlash is excessive, but anyone who refuses to acknowledge the plain and undisputed history involved forfeits any right to participate in that discussion.

                    • Asmondius

                      Typical homosexual tactic – when you can’t challenge the idea, attack the individual.

                    • Patrick

                      This from someone who’s comments have been nothing but a constant string of insults? That’s rich.

                    • Asmondius

                      Quote one here, or be silent.

                    • Patrick

                      You’ve called me “too lazy to gat off my duff”, that I had no education beyond Wikipedia, called me a liar in multiple comments, and identified me with child molesters, all while defending an article calling me and mine bullies and ridiculing my attempt to inform as to the historical causes and context.

                    • Asmondius

                      Quote one here, or be silent.

                    • Patrick

                      Um, I just listed several times you were deliberately insulting. You complain my comments are more insults than substance, but I have made multiple statements that are backed by evidence which you still have yet to offer substantive comment on. Since you don’t seem to be listening to a single word either I say or that you say, I feel no need to continue talking to myself.

                    • Asmondius

                      You listed no quotes, only scribed more caterwauling. If you can’t deal with the disagreement of others, I suggest you pack up your little soapbox and preach where people find scurrilous arguments to be acceptable as ‘evidence’.

                    • Patrick

                      OK, if you really need to be spoon-fed, I’ll try walking you through one example. At one point, I was repeating the fact that Christians have had a long history of discriminating against gays. Rather than acknowledge any of the historical examples I had previously listed, this was your response:

                      “Yes, yes, for example that mean ol’ Catholic Church has stopped letting them have access to adolescent boys.”

                      Your obvious meaning is that gays molest underage boys and that we consider efforts to prevent that a form of discrimination. That is an extremely insulting statement, not to mention entirely disingenuous and blatantly false. The only question now is whether you’ll be an adult and own up to your insult or act like a child and refuse to.

                    • Asmondius

                      The fact is, for example, that more than three quarters of the known victims of abuse in the American Catholic Church were adolescent boys who were assaulted by adult males. That’s homosexual predation. It’s also a fact that proponents of man-boy ‘love’ were a part of the homosexual ‘liberation’ movement and marched in ‘Pride’ parades right up into the 1990’s, when they became a political liability for the burgeoning ‘rights’ mobilization. And what about all of those supposedly runaway homosexual young men who become prostitutes – who are their customers? Historically, from ancient Greece up through modern times, social or institutional acceptance of homosexuality has always led to pederasty.

                    • Patrick

                      And those men who abuse boys like that should locked up, along with anyone who hid what they were doing. Equating us with those men is disgusting and insulting. Using those men as examples of what gays are like is no different than gays using the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church as examples of what Christians are like. Keep using those examples, and you lose all right to complain about Christians being called bigots.

                    • Asmondius

                      Those men are/were (some are now deceased) homosexuals – you own them. Neither the KKK or Westboro are campaigning to have their behavior universally accepted by society. Christians are quite used to being called names, by the way.

                    • Patrick

                      The KKK and WBC are Christians. You share their faith, and from what I see, their attitudes. You own them. I condemn what child molesters do. You seem perfectly fine with what the WBC does.

                    • Patrick

                      If you don’t even know what my point is, why on Earth are you arguing against it? What do you think you’re arguing about?

                    • Asmondius

                      Don’t shoot the messenger. You have no point.

          • Marees1963

            LOL Sure, and who is controlling that “established” history?

            • Glen

              Aliens?

      • Cap America

        Let’s see some evidence for your claim of Americans being fired for being gay. It’s a loose claim here.

        • Charlie McDonald

          Here is the proof. http://bit.ly/1sZ2wHu

          Please use your Google search bar to research the issue and elevate your consciousness. The world is better when all of us are smarter and more educated.

    • Franks Trate Writes

      Correct on all points.

      • Ray Taylor

        Wrong on points. Prove any one of your arguments.

  • GG

    ‘She goes on to condemn assisted reproductive technologies used by gay
    couples to have children. She considers this yet another form of
    exploitation and that “wholeness and balance cannot be found in such
    families, because something is missing. I [the mother] am missing.”’

    This is a central point not discussed enough. Even the Synod seems overly focused on the public sinners rather than those who are affected by their sins. There is talk about toning down the “harsh” language of Catholic moral theology, just like the new Homophiles want. But, who speaks for the poor kids? Where are their rights? Who cares how they are affected?

    The exaggerated concern for those who publicly support this deviant and demonic ideology is grossly misdirected and is not of the gospel but of the anti Gospel.

    • DE-173

      Except “gay couples” don’t have children, they have them bred for them.

      • So a lesbian woman who gives birth to her own chid and then raises it… that’s breeding?

        Or a gay couple who adopts the unwanted child of some teen in Idaho… if a straight couple adopted it would you say that teen “bred” a baby for them?

        You’re pathetic.

        • msmischief

          A lesbian who claims to be the mother of a child because another woman bore it, on the grounds of what they did in bed, is certainly having it breed for her.

          • Paul McGuire

            Or she may adopt the child while raising the child together with the mother after the father abandons them, leaving the mother to raise the child on her own. Would you rather the child be raised by a single mother than have another woman come in to help out and form a family?

            • Marees1963

              No matter how you want to try and twist a homosexual relationship that drags children into the mess as a “family” it is not a family. Do some research on the harmful effects of gays raising children in pseudo families.

              • Paul McGuire

                If such research exists I haven’t seen it, unless you mean that Regnarus study, which shows no such thing. You might be served to read the research that shows the opposite, that same-sex couples do not have a negative effect on raising children.

                • Titan000

                  I call bullshit.

                  From the study:

                  Economics:

                  On economic outcomes, grown children of an LM were almost four times
                  more likely to be currently on public assistance than the grown children
                  of IBFs. As young adults, they were also 3.5 times more likely to be
                  unemployed than the grown children of IBFs.

                  Crime:

                  On criminal outcomes, the children of GFs showed the greatest
                  propensity to be involved in crime. They were, on average, more
                  frequently arrested and pled guilty to more non-minor offenses than the
                  young-adult children in any other category. The children of LMs reported
                  the second highest frequency of involvement in crimes and arrests, and
                  in both categories the young-adult children of intact biological
                  families reported the lowest frequency of involvement in crimes or
                  arrests.

                  Sexual abuse:

                  [W]hen asked if they were ever touched sexually by a parent or other adult, the children of LMs were eleven times more
                  likely to say “yes” than the children from an IBF, and the children of
                  GFs were three times more likely to say “yes.” The children of IBFs were
                  the least likely of all family types to have ever been touched
                  sexually: only 2% reported affirmatively (compared to 23% of LMs who
                  replied “yes”). When asked if they were ever forced to have sex against
                  their will, the children of LMs were the worst off again—four times more
                  likely to say “yes” than the children of IBFs. The children of GFs were
                  three times more likely to have been forced to have sex than the
                  children of IBFs. In percentages, 31% of LMs said they had been forced
                  to have sex, compared with 25% of GFs and 8% of IBFs. These results are
                  generally consistent with research on heterosexual families. For
                  instance, a recent federal report showed that children in heterosexual
                  families are least likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally
                  abused in an intact, biological, married family.[7]

                  Sexually transmitted diseases:

                  Regarding physical health, when asked if they had ever had a sexually
                  transmitted infection (STI), the young-adult children of GFs were three
                  times more likely to say “yes” than those of IBFs. Children of LMs were
                  two and a half times more likely to say “yes,” followed by the children
                  of stepfamilies, who were twice as likely to have had an STI as
                  children of IBFs. Children of IBFs and children from “other” family
                  types were the least likely of all to have had an STI.

                  Drug use:

                  When asked to report upon frequency of marijuana use, the young-adult
                  children of divorced parents were the worst off, reporting that they
                  had used marijuana on average one and a half times more frequently than
                  children of IBFs; next came the children of LMs, followed by the
                  children of single parents, and the children of GFs. The children
                  adopted prior to age 2 by strangers (people unrelated to them) and the
                  children of IBFs reported least frequent marijuana use as young adults.

                  Emotional health:

                  Respondents were asked to report their sentiment about their family
                  experiences while growing up. The children of LMs reported the lowest
                  levels of perceived safety in their childhood home, followed by children
                  of GFs, with the children of IBFs reporting the highest levels of
                  perceived safety. When asked if they were recently or currently in
                  therapy “for a problem connected with anxiety, depression,
                  relationships, etc.,” children adopted by strangers reported receiving
                  such therapy the most, followed by the children of LMs. The children from IBFs were least likely to report receiving therapy.

                  On the CES-D depression index, an eight-measure survey of
                  respondents’ happy-to-depressed thoughts over the previous seven days,
                  the young-adult children of LMs and GFs reported statistically
                  significantly higher levels of depression than young-adult children from
                  IBFs. The young-adult children of GFs were twice as more likely to have
                  thought about suicide in the previous 12 months as the children of LMs,
                  and almost five times more likely than the children of IBFs to have
                  thought about the same.

                  Relationships:

                  The study asked questions about the history and current status of the
                  young adults’ relationships. When asked to rate the quality of their
                  current relationship, the children of GFs reported the lowest, followed
                  by children adopted by strangers, the children of stepfamilies, and then
                  the children of LMs.

                  When asked about the number of times they thought that their current
                  relationship was in trouble, the children of GFs reported the highest
                  numbers again, followed by the children of divorced parents. The
                  children of IBFs reported both the highest levels of relationship
                  quality and the lowest frequency of thinking their relationship to be in
                  trouble of all of the family arrangements.

                  When asked about infidelity, children of LMs were three times more
                  likely to report having had had an affair while married/cohabiting than
                  children of IBFs, followed by children from stepfamilies (who were two
                  and a half times more likely than IBFs) and children of GFs (who were
                  twice as likely).

                  Sexual orientation:

                  The NFSS asked respondents to identify their sexual orientation and
                  found that children of LMs were more open to same-sex romantic
                  relationships, bisexuality, and asexuality than any other group.
                  Daughters of LMs reported an average of just over one female sex partner
                  and four male sex partners in their lifetimes, in contrast to daughters
                  of IBFs who reported an average of only 0.22 female sex partners and
                  2.79 male sex partners in their lifetimes. Daughters of LMs were also
                  most likely to self-report asexuality, “not sexually attracted to either
                  males or females” (4.1% of females from lesbian mothers compared to
                  0.5% of females from IBFs). Children of GFs were the next least likely
                  to identify as fully heterosexual. Children from IBFs were most likely
                  of all family types to identify as entirely heterosexual.

                  • Paul McGuire

                    Quoting the study ignores the limitations of the way he defined his study participants. There were very few participants in stable two-parent same-sex households. The problems he found can mostly be attributed to the parent who happened to have a same-sex partner not finding a stable person with whom to co-parent.

                    There are plenty of articles out there that explain the shortcomings in the original Regnarus study but perhaps most telling is that it has stopped being used in court filings by the side trying to uphold marriage bans because it is not being received very well by the judges.

                    • Titan000

                      Show me.

                    • Paul McGuire

                      Well here is one example that shows clearly how few of the responses in the study were of the sort he attempted to generalize from.
                      http://wakingupnow.com/blog/regnerus-admits-he-lacks-the-data-to-critique-same-sex-parenting-so-why-is-he-doing-it

                      And then take it from his own words on an interview with Focus on the Family, where he says, ” I take pains in the study to say this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad. It is not a study about parenting or parenthood, or parenting practices. I didn’t measure parenting practices.”

                      He also admits that only a few of the couples he studied were actually long-term committed same-sex couples.

                      “There were two cases where they said the mom and her partner lived together for 18 years. There was another several who lived together for 15 or 13 years. So, stability in the sense of long-term was not common.”

                      http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/10/26/friday-5-mark-regnerus/?skip_splash=1

                    • Asmondius

                      Two men can not replace their own parents. This is common sense.

                    • Michael Jones

                      Wouldn’t be because statistically long term relationships are exceedingly rare in homosexual partnerships. Even more rare if you are looking for monogamous same sex partnerships. Even amoung lessibians the mean is about 5 years and among homosexual men it’s about 2.5 years.

                    • Fargo106

                      “There were very few participants in stable two-parent same-sex households.”
                      I think there is a study that addresses that issue, too… that by enlarge the “split rate” among same-sex “committed relationships” is much higher than it is among heterosexual married couples.

                    • Michael Jones

                      Dishonest actually it was unknown in many cases if there was a two parent household because many partners were transient especially in cases involving men. THis was actually discussed in the study…….

                • Michael Jones

                  Actually the Regnarus study does show the increased likely hood of harm that alone would make it tortfeasance. I have read it many times. Saying it shows no harm is simply galling intellectual dishonesty.

                • Marees1963

                  Actually, the studies you are referring to show no such thing for many reasons. When one reads any study it is important to look at the size and scope of the sample base, the questions asked and how they are worded, and many other factors. Those studies you are referring to have been proven to be skewed in favor of a particular outcome. What I was referring to were personal accounts of adults who have been raised by gay couples. They are telling a very different story than that of those studies that supposedly “prove” there is no negative effect on children raised in same sex relationships. That is the ones who are brave enough to speak out. Because there is a very real problem with anyone who speaks out against gays as being vilified and their lives being ruined by militant liberals.

                  • Paul McGuire

                    Except these stories tend to only be posted on Christian publications. This leads me to think that there aren’t very many people who experienced things in that way.

                    • Marees1963

                      Not in my experience and research of the subject. Are you insinuating that because an article or research is posted on a Christian site it is false? Often articles posted on Christian sites are taken from elsewhere that are not Christian. As if it makes a difference?

                    • Paul McGuire

                      If there are such articles then please share them because I haven’t found them. But what I meant is if the only place an article is posted is on a Christian site then it leads me to believe that there is a bias there. If there was say a big study that showed that children of same-sex couples were harmed by that setup (besides the Regnerus study discussed above) I would expect people to report about it widely if it was as reliable as you say.

                    • Glen

                      Well… Christians don’t have the best historical track record with reason, rationality, and reality.

                    • Marees1963

                      Uh, you do realize that the Catholic Church has taught logic and reason for an extremely long time? Where do you think the concept of universities came from? The Catholic Church.

                    • Glen

                      Of course they have!

                      *snark*

                    • Marees1963

                      For your education: (NOTE: This article originally appeared in somewhat different form at http://www.takimag.com, and is reprinted with permission.) http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1011-locklin

                    • Marees1963

                      The title of the article I linked is: No Catholic Church, No Scientific Method

                      October 2011By Scott Locklin

                  • Glen

                    Suuuure. Scientific based studies can’t reveal the truth about kids raised by gay parents. Such studies indicate that a child raised their entire lives within a stable gay-parented home do equally well on all measures as do kids raised their entire lives in stable straight-parented homes.

                    Nope. What’s more likely are the anecdotal stories of a very small handful of kids (now adults) from broken or dysfunctional homes where they happened to then live with their gay parent and partner.

                    You’ll find kids from straight-parented homes that suffered a break up or divorce frequently suffer the same turmoils and troubles as did this handful of disaffected kids of gay parents.

                    • Marees1963

                      Again, read what I posted. The studies claiming such nonsense of gay parenting are flawed to begin with.

            • Asmondius

              Or it rains spaghetti on Tuesday afternoons…..

            • LOL.

              Notice how, instead of going after the father for abandoning the child, you kick and scream and demand that that child now be held hostage to your need to force lesbian relationships.

              This is where your entire act falls apart. You don’t want to fix the problem; you just want to use the child as an excuse for forcing lesbianism.

        • fredx2

          tell the truth now – “gives birth to her own child by inseminating herself on the end of a pole with semen from a man she does not know – yes, that is breeding, just like they do with cows.

        • Asmondius

          Hmmm – lesbians don’t require sexual reproduction?

          When a homosexual couple adopts a child, they deny that child a mother or a father forever – on purpose, to satisfy themselves.

        • Michael Jones

          Where did the sperm come from ? are you insinuating that lesbians can reproduce A sexually? Where is the father ? Nothing you have stated refutes the point that a child was removed from his mother, father, or both. Why would you assume the child was unwanted do you even know the percentages of “unwanted” children ? THey are far more likely to have a dead or incapacitated parent or a parent who had their parental rights suspended because of child abuse neglect or drug use. This doesn’t mean the child was unwanted, it does imply that the child was in danger though.

    • Mike Waters

      It sounds like her issue was more about divorce than about gays. She’d be in the same position if her husband had left her for another woman. Divorce is the real issue within marriage.

      • The_Monk

        You might want to read her column before you continue. It is linked above. The real issue is the damage, real and potential, that the kids will suffer. Peace…

        • tom

          What happened to the courts and “the best interests of the child”?

          Our courts are now….insane.

          • Franks Trate Writes

            You are right.

      • Anthony Zarrella

        Mike, bear in mind that if her husband had left her for another woman, he would be roundly agreed to be the villain of the piece. Society would agree that leaving your wife for your mistress is unacceptable, and the judge would most likely have given Janna primary custody (as the innocent and faithful spouse).

        Because he left her for a man, however, his “choice” was celebrated as “courageous” by society, and the judge was willing to give him everything he wanted – as though he, as an “oppressed” gay man, was the aggrieved party in the divorce.

        That said, divorce is definitely *a* real issue. I just object to calling it *the* real issue, as though the prescriptive normalization of homosexual behavior is not itself a real issue.

        • Franks Trate Writes

          True. Well put,

        • The different is as a woman, she could never give a GAY MAN what he needs/deserves in a healthy relationship. Could a man give you what you need in a relationship, Anthony? Ever? No. This woman expected this man to live a lie in order to make life easier for her. It’s funny, if I ever found out my husband were gay, I wouldn’t want him to stay with me! I would want to marry a man who was actually sexually attracted to me, who wasn’t living a lie for the sake of appearances! This man can no more give her what she needs/deserves in a relationship than she can him, yet she selfishly expected him to want to keep up an unfulfilling sham of a marriage because…. appearance? Please.

          • msmischief

            You don’t NEED anything in a relationship. Billions of people have lived out long lives without them. You are obfuscating that he just wanted something that he didn’t need.

          • concern00

            One thing I guarantee is that he won’t be getting a healthy relationship with another man! Such a thing is not possible.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            You’re making three key erroneous assumptions.

            1) Even if we accept all your points, it doesn’t explain the fact that the judge was explicitly biased towards the man. Even if it was good and right and wonderful for him to get out of his unfulfilling marriage, it wasn’t his wife’s fault that it was a bad situation for him. She didn’t somehow trick or coerce a man she knew to be gay into marrying her – she married a man she thought loved her, had two kids with him, and then had the rug pulled out from under her. Even if he was right to get a divorce, he wasn’t the victim here, and so the judge had no good reason to favor him.

            2) Marriage isn’t *about* mutual benefit – shocking, perhaps, but true. An ideal marriage *will* benefit both spouses, but marriage is a lifelong commitment “for better or for worse.” It’s “as long as you both shall live,” not “as long as you both find the arrangement beneficial.” How is suddenly realizing that you’re gay and can’t love a woman any different from suddenly realizing that you’ve “changed as a person” and can no longer love *this* woman? (Which is what the “irreconcilable differences” BS is all about) Either way, it’s putting your own satisfaction ahead of the promise you made.

            3) Your whole post completely ignores the children in all of this. Maybe (though I strongly disagree) he *shouldn’t* keep up a marriage he’s no longer happy in “for appearances” or even because he promised. It’s still selfish and self-serving for him to break up *his children’s* family for the sake of his own happiness. When he had kids, he lost the right to put his own “needs” first. Those kids deserved better than a broken home just because Daddy decided he was going to “be true to himself” or whatever BS he fed them. Let’s not even get into all the competing studies about whether or not being raised by an openly gay dad is good for the kids – regardless, no one can say that living with a broken family is better for them than an intact one (in the absence of any abuse issues, which don’t seem to be present in this case).

            • Teri Simpkins

              So if she had found out he was gay and he still wanted to remain married but she was the one who had wanted out of the marriage, would you think she was being selfish and self-serving? See, that’s what happened to a couple that I know. They’d had a child, she found out he was gay, they stayed married and had another child and then she decided that she didn’t want to remain in the marriage, even though he hadn’t cheated on her. So now they’re divorced, living in two different states, and he only sees the children approximately 45 days per year.
              You’re trying to make people stay together for children and thinking it is better for the children if they do that, but the truth is, it simply isn’t. I know. My parents should have divorced and didn’t. 4 children, and only one of us isn’t screwed up.

              • Anthony Zarrella

                //So if she had found out he was gay and he still wanted to remain married but she was the one who had wanted out of the marriage, would you think she was being selfish and self-serving?//

                Absolutely, Teri. Assuming he was willing to remain faithful (as opposed to insisting that he wanted to remain married while pursuing a gay relationship with another man), then I’d say it would be selfish and self-serving for her to give up on the marriage.

                //You’re trying to make people stay together for children and thinking it is better for the children if they do that, but the truth is, it simply isn’t.//

                I have sympathy for your evidently unhappy childhood, but I’m not sure a single data point (your own experience) proves a general principle about whether it is better for parents to divorce or stay together when the marriage has trouble. I hate to say it, but (going solely on your testimony and not knowing your parents, of course) I’d say your situation proves only that your parents screwed up as parents (perhaps by not being strong enough to put your well-being ahead of whatever differences they had between them), not that they should have divorced.

                I should note, however, that even in the view of the Church (as I understand it), there are a few situations where a civil divorce is at least a permissible option (though the marriage still endures, making both “divorced” spouses unavailable for other relationships) – specifically, situations of spousal (or child) abuse, chronic and unrepentant adultery, and abandonment (where one spouse may or may not be physically present, but simply neglects all obligations to the family) – and if one of those was the issue in your family, then perhaps you’re right, and they should have divorced. However, “irreconcilable differences,” or “falling out of love,” or not being “sexually compatible,” or “arguing all the time,” are not good reasons.

          • Asmondius

            ‘Living a lie’ = nothing matters beyond sexual attraction

        • Jospephine Kearney

          No, he didn’t get “whatever he wanted” because he’s a gay man. He got SOME of what he wanted in the normal course of a divorce settlement. If he got full custody (he didn’t, as I understand it) it was likely because the mother had parenting issues. Shared custody is very common these days, and I think this is all the father got. Sexual orientation on its own has no effect on custody. Fitness as a parent does. There are similar cases where the sexes have been reversed (women married to men came out as lesbians.) I know of one such case where the lesbian mother and her girlfriend got primary custody, so “Rivka Edelman’s” diatribe about men using women “as breed animals” doesn’t make any sense. She’s a grievance addict. The Public Discourse has already had to apologize based on an inaccuracy in her piece. She is making assumptions with no basis in reality. “Edelman” herself is divorced and has a daughter from a previous marriage. She is no different in many ways from the man she attacks.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            With all due respect, Josephine, read the article again. It appears that the judge explicitly stated to the man, “If you had asked for more, I would have given it to you.” In other words, he had already gotten everything he asked for.

            Also, it appears that the mother has *no* physical custody, and (based on the fact that the kids could be featured in an article without her consent) probably no legal custody either.

            If there is a reason she was actually adjudicated to be an unfit parent (or at least, less fit than her husband), then it’s “not in evidence” as they say. Your speculation that “if he got full custody, it was likely because the mother had parenting issues” is nothing more than a post hoc justification – i.e. you’re starting from the premise that the judge’s ruling was fair, then working backwards to assume the existence of facts that would make it fair. That’s sort of like how some people argue against rights of criminal defendants because “if he hadn’t done anything, they wouldn’t have arrested him.”

            Lastly, I’m not talking about Edelman at all, so I feel no need to respond to your accusations against her. My points don’t depend on anything to do with the “breed animals” argument, and I’d be just as incensed if this *were* a lesbian divorcing her husband and getting favoritism from the courts and from the media.

            • Teri Simpkins

              Actually, the husband responded to the original story with the statement that he DIDN’T get full custody. Since none of us were there in the courtroom and most custody cases in CA aren’t available to the general public, we may never know the full truth. The bottom line is, this woman didn’t really have a problem with him being gay so much as the fact that he asked for (and got) a divorce. You, Anthony, seem to think that marriages should almost never end. I think you’re living in a fantasy world but that’s simply my opinion. I know how much bad divorces can hurt and I know how good a good divorce can be for all parties involved, even the children. The decline in fighting alone is better for children and if you think that parents will stop fighting for the sake of the children, then go back to my fantasy world comment.

              • Anthony Zarrella

                Alright, so we may never know whether he got full custody or not. Do you think that’s a deciding factor? In other words, if he *had* gotten full custody, would you think, “Yeah, OK, that was unfair”? If not, then whether or not he got full custody is not really the point of this debate we’re having.

                You probably would still think it’s fair, while I, on the other hand, think it’s unfair that he got even got primary custody (since he left her, not the other way around, and there’s no evidence that she was unfit as a parent).

                He asked for and got a divorce because he cared more about his own sexual and romantic fulfillment than about the marriage and the family that he and his wife had built together – that’s what’s selfish, whether he was gay or not.

                Lastly, yes, I do think that marriages should almost never end. It’s not because I’m living in a fantasy world, though. It’s because I’m holding this world to a higher standard – I’m not willing to accept that the way things are is the way they must be.

                Also, I think that if it were commonly accepted that marriage is for life (as it used to be), then that would have two beneficial effects: 1) couples would consider much more carefully before marrying, rather than treating it as just a nice gesture of their love and [for-the-moment] commitment. 2) When married couples have disagreements, if they knew that they’re stuck with each other no matter what, then they’d be a lot more motivated to find solutions and compromises, and to truly reconcile after fights, rather than each insisting on their own way, and sweeping issues under the rug just for the sake of “making up” after a fight (while each spouse secretly feels smug about “taking the high road” and letting the other spouse “have their way”).

      • Franks Trate Writes

        No, if her husband had gone off with another woman he would not have taken the children to live surrounded by deviants and he would not have been turned against women by these “gay” woman-haters. Never forget that homo men hate women, They often refer to women with aggression or contempt. And the judge would not have treated the father as a privileged person because gee whizz he was “gay”. Remember what happened in the Frank Lombard case. They lived on a “gay” condo as well.

        • Paul McGuire

          I’m sorry what? Since when do gay men hate women? Most gay men I know get along with women perfectly well. And women love to hang out with gay men because they don’t have to worry about things turning romantic all of a sudden.

          • Asmondius

            The women I know abhor them.

            So much for anecdotal evidence.

          • Michael Jones

            Errrr not so fast while in public many gay men are fond and amicale to women. If you hear what they say behind their backs or when those women have left …… story takes a different turn.

      • M

        I agree, Mike. It’s about divorce. I feel very sorry for Janna Darnelle. She is the spurned wife of a husband who found another lover. This happens in marriages too often (usually a spouse leaving for someone of the opposite sex.) I’m sure it hurts terribly. A friend of mine found out recently that her husband had been having a long-term affair with a married woman. She was devastated. To rub salt in the wound, her husband and his (female) lover married and got primary custody of the kids. I can see why that happened (the husband was the more stable of the two,) but it had to hurt. My friend got a lot of money out of the settlement, but she lost custody of her children. Another woman friend of mine fell in love with a woman and divorced her husband to marry her new lover. Her husband was absolutely heart-broken. Again, his wife, the person who had left HIM, got primary custody of the children. These are very sad stories, especially as there are children involved. Divorce is tragic. Some describe it as a terrible bereavement. My friends who have gone through divorces usually end up angry, embittered, and often broke. In Darnelle’s case, the problem is compounded by the fact that she is anti-gay. I don’t know any divorcee who feels completely happy about her children spending time with the ex. I don’t know any capable of being objective about the situation. The sad part of this is that there was a divorce — not that the ex-husband is gay.

  • Cap America

    I’m stunned, in 2014, how very politically active corporations are, and how much they are being manipulated to serve way-lefty liberal freaky notions. For example, the notorious Caterpillar Foundation immediately pulled funding from the Boy Scouts because they don’t allow adult homosexual leaders.

    How did corporations get so co-opted . . . and used. . . by the liberals. (No, don’t say “progressive”: we know better than that! These policies are just nutty stuff that manages to stay alive in the public air because of our public “tolerance/pc” mentality).

    Expect more punitive measures by the liberals.

    Ultimately, the gay “bullyboys” will always have to put energy into their persecutions, in order to keep up the nonsense on stilts that they try to create. It takes more energy to perpetrate a lie than to tell the truth.

    • DE-173

      “I’m stunned, in 2014, how very politically active corporations are, and how much they are being manipulated to serve way-lefty liberal freaky notions. For example, the notorious Caterpillar Foundation immediately pulled funding from the Boy Scouts because they don’t allow adult homosexual leaders.”

      Interesting too, how that sort of politicking seems to be accompanied by an an inability to run the core business.

      Caterpillar, who owns Progress Rail, who owns Electromotive Diesel. the only competitor to GE in the “line haul” locomotive market will be unable to sell it’s locomotives effective January 1, 2015. The reason? They failed to develop some way of mitigating emisions to comply with the EPA’s Tier IV regulations that go into effect on that date.

      Kodak, once the most indigo of blue-chips, that fired an employee for daring to ask to be removed from the HR broadcast messages promoting homosexuality. Now, a shell of itself, and traded on the pinksheets.

      And then there’s Target, who can’t keep its data secure, but has the time to file briefs in favor of SSM.

  • Pamela

    This happened to me in 2010. A local newspaper published my commentary against the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and I was immediately attacked by gay bully boys nationwide. The things they said about me are not repeatable here. They also found out where I worked and flooded my employer’s switchboard with calls to have me fired. I had to leave the company. I contacted a lawyer and was told there was nothing I could do about it. Reading this story about Janna Darnelle was like opening a wound.

    I am also disheartened to learn that some in the Church hierarchy are proposing “softening” the language in our catechism (because “intrinsically disordered” is too harsh on homosexuals). Very hard to maintain any optimism in this environment. I spend more and more time praying.

    • Objectivetruth

      Mark 13:13 “You will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.”

      Stand fast, brothers and sisters, stand fast! At our Confirmations, we were chosen personally by Christ. This world is not our home.

      • joe ho

        bible babble.

    • Fred

      My thoughts are with you too Pamela, and I am happy that it did not cause you to lose your faith despite the hardships which I am sorry for. We do live in strange times, and the Gospel that ObjectiveTruth reminds us of below is a timely reminder.

    • Koufax

      “For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?”

      Let us pray for our detractors and for the enemies of the Church for they know now what they do.

    • scottrose

      Oh boo-hoo.

      You hate-mongered against gay people and then you paid a price for your vile hate-mongering.

      Boo-hoo for you!

      • GG

        Truth is hate to those who hate truth.

        • joe ho

          that’s why you hate the truth that homosexuality is 100% normal and natural.

          the archaic death and fertility cult known as christianity, on the other hand….

      • DE-173

        “hate-mongering” more psychotic drivel.

      • So what you’re saying is that those who oppose gay marriage will “pay a price?” Kind of sounds a bit like a protection racket, doesn’t it?

        • DE-173

          I believe the expected response to the agenda is: “Ya vold, mein Fuhrer.”

      • ForChristAlone

        Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it………………..

      • R. K. Ich

        I love how “hate” is employed by the psychotic left: it practically means nothing because hate is so many things in so many contexts. What they won’t do is define this word for examination. It’s too much like thinking. What they need is a bogeyman term that evokes fear or shame apart from any meaningful content. It’s propaganda in its most naked form. So I really laugh at the term since it’s like “homophobe” — means nothing really since nobody cares to define it.

        • Charlie McDonald

          Are you really uneducated or just incredibly lazy? Merriam Webster defines it. You have an internet connection do a little research with your Google bar.

          Homophbia: dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people

          Homophobe: a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly

          • R. K. Ich

            Yes, Charlie, I am extremely uneducated AND lazy. But when it comes to leftist barbarisms, it doesn’t require much aptitude nor energy to topple their idols.

            “Homophobia”, you claim, is officially defined as “dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.” But that’s an irrational assault on the Greek etymology for fear. I don’t fear homosexuals as persons. I suspect most traditional foundationalists as myself wouldn’t anybody who is self-identified as same-sex attracted.

            However, we do *rationally* fear the effects of their lifestyles upon the innocence of children. We *thoughtfully* fear the aftermath of the philosophy that backs their immorality. If you are trying for a sleight of hand at metonymy, then please forego the silly term– it’s tiresome and vacuous.

            • Charlie McDonald

              It’s funny to watch you trying to defend your ignorance. You’re apparently wiling to use any distortion of language to attempt to persuade people of you viewpoint including trying to convince us that words that are clearly defined have no definition.

              If you have to deconstruct language in order to win your point you have no logical foundation for your point.

              • R. K. Ich

                “Words that are clearly defined…” But that is under dispute since terms like “homophobe” are neologisms that are politically charged and artificially crafted for the purpose of obfuscation, and not organically derived from the living stream of language.

                Need proof of this? Care to discuss the term “marriage”? I wait with baited breath to see you not abuse linguistic and etymological norms in order to explain why two men can be so married. The intellectual tradition is clearly not on your side, but I do tip my hat to you for at least attempting at verbicide with a half-hearted effort attempt at appearing academic in your response.

      • Anthony Zarrella

        Yes, Scott, because of course any opposition to a policy move that would benefit gays *must* be “hate-mongering against gay people” no matter how respectfully it’s written or how well-reasoned its grounds are. No one could *possibly* oppose DADT repeal unless they “hate” gay people. That’s the only possible reason, right? Because Romer v. Evans said so?

        There are a great many people, myself included, who disagree strongly with the gay lobby, but who have no hatred or animus whatsoever towards gay people, individually or as a group. I oppose the NOW’s agenda, too – does that mean I must hate all women?

      • BigBlueWave

        Yes people who disagree with you will pay a price, won’t they?

        Fascist!

      • The Beekeeper

        The difference between Pamela’s response to what she disagreed with, namely the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and the response of those who disagreed with her, the LGBT bullyboys, is that Pamela put her position in a newspaper where it could be discussed, debated, and argued for it’s merits or lack thereof. But the bullyboys aren’t satisfied with defending their position or making their case civilly in a rebuttal article. They must go for the throat, defame, insult, and ultimately personally destroy those who don’t agree with them.

      • Asmondius

        ‘Hate’ no longer carries any meaning thanks to its overuse by hand wringers such as yourself.

    • Patrick

      So after publicly calling for the reinstatement of a policy to get gays and lesbians in the armed forces fired, members of the public called for you to get fired. That sounds more like karma than bullying to me.

      • ForChristAlone

        Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it……………….

        • Charlie McDonald

          If we are filled with hate it is because your interpretation of your religion makes us the vessel for hate. You heterosexuals channel all your anger and rage at other things into anti-gay speech and action. When I am at a hockey game and the guy behind me is screaming “fucking faggots” but is otherwise a “Christian” man, he is channeling his rage against the other team into rage against gay people. WE ARE NOT THE ONES THAT PISSED YOU OFF. The other team deserves the hate, not gay people.

          When you daily say “That’s so gay” meaning that it sucks or is undesirable you are creating a culture that Jesus would abhor. God is Love and he loves all his children.

          Your daily psychological warfare against us because of your own inability to be accountable for your own anger, rage and hate is unacceptable.

          It is time that you put your anger where it belongs—with the people you are angry at. DO NOT CHANNEL YOUR RAGE, HATE, ANGER and other awful emotions into gay people. WE ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF YOUR ISSUES.

      • Cap America

        what nonsense.

      • Marees1963

        What part of “don’t ask, don’t tell” don’t you understand? In other words, keep it to thy self. As a woman, I would not want a man who is attracted to women showering and sleeping in the same quarters as I. It would lower my moral as a member of the armed service, hypothetically. Same difference with gay men showering and sleeping in the same quarters as hetero men.

        • Patrick

          Spoken like a true hetero

      • Asmondius

        Sounds like a lynching to me.

  • Here we go again.

    Public Discourse has already had to run a retraction and apologize to me for “Rivka Edelman’s” attempt to link me to the actions of Scott Rose. But now Mr. Ruse is doing the very same thing, writing: “One must believe that the likes of Jeremy Hooper and Scott Rose and all the nasties in the comment boxes are far from representative of gay culture. One hopes so. We look forward to the day when Hooper-Rose et al are ostracized for their behavior.”

    Jeremy Hooper has not written anyone’s employer. Jeremy Hooper has not tried to get anyone fired. Jeremy Hooper doesn’t have the first interest in doing that. I still don’t even know Janna Darnelle’s real name because I don’t have the first desire to know it. My work is and has always been focused on the ideas that a person shares and not on whether or not that person should have the right to share them.

    You cannot just say that I do things that I do not do.

    Jeremy Hooper

    • And you should know, Mr. Ruse, that BA Newmark-Klein filed an amicus brief in an appeals court making the case against marriage equality. In that public filing, she noted that she writes under the pen name of “Rivka Edelman.” That is how I and perhaps others made the connection. It didn’t take some massive digging: she chose to file the brief!

      • DE-173

        Geez, look at all the trolls and their furious dedication to marriage deformation.

        • Always funny the way social conservatives misuse the word “troll.” When you apply it to someone who is literally (and unfairly) mentioned multiple times in the article, it is downright laughable.

          Discourse: it’s a great thing.

          • DE-173

            We don’t feel the need to invade your sites en masse. On the other hand, people who would NEVER bother to come here, arrive en masse as soon as “the love that won’t shut the hell up” is the topic du jour.

            You only make the point that you will use force, intimidation, coercion to get your “way”.

            Discourse is held voluntarily.

            You are a troll.

            But hey, thanks for making me think Sharia law might have something to offer the world.

            • Boo

              In other words, you just can’t admit the article is defamatory so you’ll bluster some more defamation to try and deflect. Hasn’t anyone ever told you that the first rule if you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging?

              • DE-173

                No the behavior described in the article is defamatory.

                • Boo

                  The behavior claimed in the article is a lie. Your lie has been exposed, but since you’re too proud to admit it, all you can think to do is double down. You’re such a delicate little flower you equate criticizing someone’s publically offered opinion with being bullied. God help you if you ever have to face an actual bully.

                  • DE-173

                    God help you. I’m quite capable of defending myself.

            • ForChristAlone

              their tactics are no different from the nazis…but we know how the nazis would up…although millions of lives were lost before the final denouement

            • Kyle

              You think that Jeremy should be executed?

              • It seems that way, doesn’t it? But unlike Mr. Ruse, Ms. Newmark, and others, I will not try to connect this commenter’s truly chilling words and actions to the site or the article writer.

              • DE-173

                No, do you? Do you think about killing often?

                • Kyle

                  “But hey, thanks for making me think Sharia law might have something to offer the world.”

                  Under Sharia Jeremy would be executed for the crime of being a homosexual, you are clearly implying that this would be good for the world…

      • ForChristAlone

        Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it…………

    • As I explained in a comment below, if you want to be taken seriously as someone who opposes online bullying, then you should not allow your opponents to be doxed in comments on your site. Legitimate discussions sites don’t allow that. (For example, see Reddit’s policy on posting personal information: https://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq#wiki_is_posting_personal_information_ok.3F ) Cyber-bullying organizing sites fronting as legitimate discussion sites do.

      • And as I explained in a reply below that, you forfeited your stake in serious discussion on this topic when you likened me to Al Capone for being one of the millions of web writers/site owners who host an unmoderated/lightly moderated commenting forum.

        • I am not at issue here; the facts are. Might want to grow a thicker skin.

          • Huh? That comment makes no sense.

            • John200

              Of course, you are done. As arcadius undressed you, we saw that, poetically speaking,

              Your skin
              Is thin.

            • DE-173

              No. Normal people don’t celebrate at funerals.

            • Objectivetruth

              Have you ever apologized to your ex wife, for your abhorrent actions taken against her? You might find some peace, Mr. Hooper, by taking this first step.

              We all sin, fall, and make mistakes, Mr. Hooper. We are all in need of redemption. I’d imagine the mother of your children is suffering greatly due to your shocking actions. Go to her, and make things right. Relieve her suffering. Or you will find no peace.

              • DN

                Jeremy’s never been married to a woman. You seem to have confused the people in the story. Quite badly.

    • Daniel P

      Let me put in my vote that you lay out exactly how you have been slandered, and Austin Ruse respond. That’s the way things ought to work.

    • “I still don’t even know Janna Darnelle’s real name because I don’t have the first desire to know it.”

      This is clearly a lie. You don’t read the top rated comment on your own article? (sorry, not sure why that’s there 3 times)
      https://imgur.com/rnCyDBg

      • Then let me correct myself on this weird attempt at splitting hairs: I didn’t *retain* her name. I did read that post many days ago, but the name I still associate with her is Janna Darnelle. And I really don’t care what her name is beyond that; I have no real need for it.

        Despite what some seem to think, I really don’t give any mind to an individual person who fights against me or their general well-being. I care only about the public engagement. The words, actions, etc.

        • If she has been harassed because of her personal information being revealed in the top-voted comment on your article, do you feel that implicates you in such harassment at all?

          • No. Her ex-husband has every right to call her by her legal name. It would be weird for him not to.

            • So it does not concern you that your site was used to facilitate harassment?

            • msmischief

              After all, it would only expose his own children to the glare of publicity. Who would not instantly sacrifice them to get back at his ex-wife?

        • Objectivetruth

          Mr. Hooper:

          Reading arcadius’ posting above how you’ve exposed your ex wife’s name truly has vomit backing up in my mouth. What kind of person are you that you would expose the mother of your children to possible attack?! Do you understand how completely wrong an act like that is? Have you no shame or honor at all? Do you understand how incredibly reprehensible an act it is that you’ve done? Why would you do this to anyone, let alone your ex wife?

          I’m sorry Mr. Hooper, but any ounce of credibility or possible benefit of the doubt you might have had in your postings on this site is out the window.

          • ForChristAlone

            Except that she is NOT his EX-wife. He is still married to her. If you state that “until death do us part” it has the effect of binding you to that, If not, then everything else you say is also to be considered a lie.

            • Objectivetruth

              Agreed, FCA. And if you are a man, any man, (whether homo or hetero inclined) does not subjugate, attack, embarrass anyone in such a way.

              True manhood does not do this. What Mr. Hooper has done is the act of a narcissistic child.

          • DN

            You write about credibility when you don’t know who Mr. Hooper is in this whole story. Come back when you’ve read what’s going on.

          • Uhm, ObjectiveTruth, I think you need to re-read. Or actually read a credible article on the subject. I’m not the ex-husband of Janna Darnelle. A man named Leif Anderson is.

            Though I do understand the confusion considering the misinformation in this post and comments forum.

        • ForChristAlone

          Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it………..

    • Blanka

      Jeremy!
      Why don’t you just live quietly, without disturbing the whole environment with your disordered way of thinking and actions – that way, no one would have any reason to even notice you or oppose your disordered sexual behavior. Even when sometimes the law of the land allows you to get “married”, you can NEVER be married because marriage without consummation cannot be called a marriage. And you, homosexuals, can never consummate your marriage, the nature does not provide for it, does it?
      So just be so good and leave your sexual preference behind your doors and stop bothering the wide population with your decision to live against the natural order of human existence.

      • Bose

        Hey, Blanka… wishing you the best that the day can bring.

        When I lost my partner to suicide almost 14 years ago, the question had long been on his mind, whether he could leave his sexual orientation “behind closed doors” in hopes of protecting others. Most of his friends, family and co-workers knew of his prior mental health hospitalizations, but only his ex-wife and a couple others knew that his depression was exacerbated by the strain of keeping the secret that he was gay. He had been a much-loved musician and choir director at two churches, where his leaving hadn’t made a lot of sense, but he had followed pastors’ requests to leave quietly, with no explanation of either his orientation or that he’d been barred from ever sitting at a piano keyboard in the churches again.

        Silence is an unworkable burden to demand of anyone. My partner tried to walk that line, for example, by spending a joyful weekend away with my extended family but never mentioning at work that he wasn’t alone or lonely after the end of his marriage because he and I were building a relationship. It would have been silly for us to move into a new neighborhood pretending to be friends only, complete with separate bedrooms and fake dates with women. It was a simple and unremarkable thing that we were together and hoped to be married; it was a terrible thing that he died still worried about that making his life too complicated and a burden on others.

        • Marees1963

          I’m sorry that this man died due to his depression, but to blame it on having to keep a “secret” lacks proof. Homosexuals have lived “out and proud” in other countries and yet their suicide rates have jumped in numbers. Suicide rates increasing in such areas could serve as proof that it is a mental disorder to begin with, instead of the propaganda of the LBGT political faction that insists it’s because of the hatred of society.

          • Bose

            Thanks for that thought. I didn’t here, nor do I ever, attribute suicide to a single unitary cause. There is always a complex swirl of factors. And yet, there is also no real doubt that living with being shamed and/or shunned makes achieving and keeping good mental health more complicated, especially for those who are already vulnerable.

            Since I don’t have a time machine, I’ll step away from the “mental disorder” thought (which credible mental health pros have used evidence to refute since the 1950s and 60s).

            • Marees1963

              No, they have not. The removal of homosexuality from the DSM was purely political. It’s the same reason there is now a political push to remove pedophilia from the DSM.

              • Glen

                Tell us, what other conspiracy theories do you like to believe in?

          • Teri Simpkins

            And rising suicide rates could always be partially attributed to the fact that being “out and proud” makes you the target of hate-filled attacks, attacks at work for simply being gay, and such. No, can’t be that, can it? Your thinking is too simplistic, as are you.

            • Marees1963

              I don’t think it’s too simplistic because by “out and proud” I mean that they have gained everything they’ve wanted in other countries, weddings, special rights, etc. Please prove that gays are “attacked” and I might believe your premise. All the “attacks” I’ve read about have been found to be faked by the “victims” themselves, or as in the case of Mathew Shepherd, some other cause like a drug deal gone bad. Perhaps it’s all the violence gay men suffer at the hands of their domestic partners? Or the very real threat of AIDS, HIV, anal cancer, among a whole host of physical problems that come with living the gay lifestyle. There’s a high rate of drug use and suicide among prostitutes. Is that because they’re hated?

              • Teri Simpkins

                You’re seriously going to go with the disproved story of “drug deal gone bad” for the death of Mathew Shepherd? Really? And I guess you also believe that the Holocaust didn’t happen, either. Idiots like you truly are beyond belief.

    • Austin Ruse

      Apparently mr hooper cannot read. I do not “link” you to the scabrous Scott Rose except insofar as you are in the same business of attacking women and others who disagree with your sexual ideology.

      • StraightGrandmother

        I am a woman and I post regularly on http://www.GoodAsYou.org
        It is wrong of you to smear Jeremy and say that he attacks women.
        You were clever to add the word AND to try and disguise the mysogney you just accused him of. As a regular commentor on Good As You I can say Categorically Jeremy is NOT anti women, not by any stretch of the imagination. All I have ever seen Jeremy do is post people’s exact writings and speech and then most of the time he will re-butt it if it is anti gay. If it is over the top a lot of times he simply posts it with hardly any editorializing as it is so over the top animus it needs no comment at all.

      • “We look forward to the day when Hooper-Rose et al are ostracized for their behavior.”

        I guess the was one of those hyphens designed for purposes other than linkage.

        • Austin Ruse

          Yes, we do look forward to the day when your little tag-team with Rose is ostracized from polite society.

      • Jospehine Kearney

        But you wrote “We look forward to the day when Hooper-Rose et al are ostracized for their behavior.” And then you claim he is in the “business of attacking women.” The former is bullying. For what behavior, exactly, should he be “ostracized.” The latter, about “attacking women,” is not a statement you should make unless you can provide direct evidence of it. Jeremy Hooper, from what I have seen here, has simply been factual. You would recover some credibility, Austin Ruse, if you would man up, apologize, and try to be more specific in your criticisms, rather than launching broad attacks against people. Your rhetoric loses any meaning when it descends into bullying and mean-spiritedness.

        • Austin Ruse

          You run a story about a good woman telling her story knowing full well you are throwing her to the wolves. You don’t know what being a man even means.

        • Austin Ruse

          I am not really interested in having credibility with you. You put women and others through the meat grinder. Despicable.

        • Asmondius

          Hello, Joseph. In persona again?

    • Objectivetruth

      You are a liar, Mr. Hooper.

      As Catholics we are not to judge a persons heart, that is up to God. But we can and must judge actions. And your actions against the very woman you took a vow before God to protect are some of the most reprehensible I’ve ever seen. Every chromosome of my male DNA is calling out your actions as one of the most unmanly acts I’ve ever witnessed. You are no man. And your last post here looks like you know you’ve been exposed for the fraud you are, and like a coward you’ve exited.

      You are in need of sorrow and repentance, Mr. Hooper. You need to make things right for the woman you have so horribly dishonored.

      • Guest

        I remember a colleague asked me what is my view on homosexuality. I just answered, “I don’t agree men having sex with men. It is okay that he acts feminine since that is his nature as long as he doesn’t have sex with men. He must remained single.” Not exact sentence but the thought is the same. The reply to me was “How can they express their feelings if they don’t have sex. Don’t be judgmental.” I got offended because I am viewed as judgmental and stereotype. But when I read this message from TLDM website, I felt somehow good.
        “… when a priest tells you that you do not have to speak up … because you are judging another person, and you should love your neighbor, and therefore never set him up to be judged, you are not judging. If a person is doing wrong, and you tell him in a kind manner, a charitable manner, that they are committing a sin, and that they will lose their soul and go to purgatory, or even hell, that is not judging. You are helping and loving your neighbor. What is love?” – Our Lady of the Roses, June 18, 1982
        Although this Bayside prophesy was not acknowledged by many, I still many of the messages.

      • Aine

        I remember a colleague asked me what is my view on homosexuality. I just answered, “I don’t agree men having sex with men. It is okay that he acts feminine since that is his nature as long as he doesn’t have sex with men. He must remained single.” Not exact sentence but the thought is the same. The reply to me was “How can they express their feelings if they don’t have sex. Don’t be judgmental.” I got offended because I am viewed as judgmental and stereotype. But when I read this message from TLDM website, I felt somehow good.
        “… when a priest tells you that you do not have to speak up … because you are judging another person, and you should love your neighbor, and therefore never set him up to be judged, you are not judging. If a person is doing wrong, and you tell him in a kind manner, a charitable manner, that they are committing a sin, and that they will lose their soul and go to purgatory, or even hell, that is not judging. You are helping and loving your neighbor. What is love?” – Our Lady of the Roses, June 18, 1982
        Although this Bayside prophesy was not acknowledged by many, I still like many of the messages.

    • Mike Waters

      Jeremy, on behalf of straight Catholics, I apologize to you for the treatment you have received here. Please know that the leaders of the Church no longer uphold such mean-spirited, un-Christian, anti-Catholic behavior. Look to Pope Francis, not some of the people here, for a true example of Christian and Catholic behavior.

  • DE-173

    “They cannot stand even a single dissent from their march to dominance and punishment. ”

    Of course. A single dissent would would raise a myriad of questions. We must all repeat that “all swans are white”, and it must be memoraized and repeated often. Otherwise, the single acknowledgement of the existence of Cygnus Astratus destroys the myth.

  • DE-173

    Gay Bully Boys have yellow eyes…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgagC4pUmQo

  • “Bullyboys?” Please. We constitute a small minority that suffers considerable repression.

    Not examined by Austen are the societal pressures that cause a gay man to marry a woman in the first place. What role does the Church play in that? I am one of those who is linked above and have written about this several times starting September 22.

    At its core this is a story of a woman who is profoundly angry. Her husband left her for another man and (depending on which version of the story you believe) she lost primary custody of her children. Her husband’s greatest fault is lacking the courage not to marry her in the first place. Yet he is a gay man and he did marry her. As Austen presumably knows, all too well, at some point we all reach the conclusion that life is too short. Sexual orientation is the basis for our romantic attractions. Hubby wanted to get on with the rest of his life. Depending upon the dynamics that existed prior to the divorce, separating might have been the best thing for the children.

    This woman’s polemic argues strongly for the recognition of gay marriage along with a Church that is more welcoming. That is the best way to prevent these marriages from ever occurring.

    • DE-173

      You have yellow eyes, Scat Farkus.

    • Daniel P

      “Her husband’s greatest fault is lacking the courage not to marry her in the first place.”

      He did not tell her he was attracted to men. That is cruel. Whatever his reasons, he USED her.

      • I came very close to doing the same thing in order to further obscure my sexuality. It’s not that uncommon. Fortunately, the younger generation of gay men has suffered less oppression and is less likely yo enter into sham marriages. 60% of them live in states that recognize same-sex marriage.

        • Daniel P

          Yes, but do you think such a decision is even vaguely morally defensible? If I had gotten married without telling my wife about my attraction to men, I would have been using her as a mere means to my goals — without asking her is she was willing to take the risk.

          • StraightGrandmother

            I agree with this actually. However the details are often messy. What about men who had an attraction to men and never acted on them and internally rejected them? They go on to marry a woman but then the passion just isn’t there and they run into a man that they simply cannot resist? I do agree with your general statement however I am wise enough (not by personal experience!) to know that the actual details may not be as cut and dried as we presume looking from the outside in.

    • Pamela

      Yes, life is short. But the hereafter is forever. Better to admit one’s sin now and repent so as to gain eternal life than to carry on his or her sexual perversion, relabel it “normal” in direct offense to our Lord, Savior and Creator, and risk eternal damnation. Darnell’s husband’s greatest fault is not recognizing this.

    • GG

      Spiritual and authentic medical help is needed.

    • Fred

      Green skin and yellow eyes, isn’t that symptomatic of a disease – from too much bile? I’m sorry to inform you Dave, but sodomy is a sin and profane.

    • Paul

      Playing the victim yet again ….

      • GG

        Part of the syndrome.

    • Guest_august

      Can a faithful Catholic call himself “GAY”? The answer is: No.No. No!
      http://www.popeleo13.com/pope/2014/08/19/category-archive-message-board-100-st-augustine-on-sex-3/

    • ForChristAlone

      Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it………

  • climate3

    Oh stop whining, Austin. Just so you know, Public Discourse issued an apology to Jeremy Hooper for the piece you are praising. And btw did you ever really apologize for that comment about shooting university leaders?

    • DE-173

      You have yellow eyes, Scat Farkus.

    • Crisiseditor

      Mr. Ruse has long since explained his choice of words on the radio and his regret for using the expression that he did. But his enemies–like Mr. Rose–will characterize the event in the most unflattering way for his own political purposes: http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2014/anatomy-of-a-takedown.html

  • jc

    You Catholics. So wrong, about so much, and for so long – women as chattel; biblical polygamy and slavery; Ptolomaic astronomy and the condemnation of Galileo; the Inquisition; the Index of banned books; birth control; now gays…

    • Objectivetruth

      You are in my prayers.

    • Fred

      Pretty shallow of you there little jc – did you make that up? Anyone that dabbles in that nonsense shows the lack of depth of understanding one can expect from … well, shallowness. Nobody denies failings – the church is organic and filled with people inspired by the big JC trying to do their best, mostly, and who occasionally stumble and ask for forgiveness. Do you have a moral compass beyond do no harm, if that, and does it change as you go along. I pray for you too, eventually we all have to face the realities of how we lived our lives.

      • Tony

        He’s a fool even on his own terms.

        1. Christianity immediately raised the status of women considerably; and women were in the eyes of God equal to men, period.

        2. Polygamy is clearly frowned upon even in the Old Testament; and Jesus rules it out of bounds for good, along with divorce and remarriage (serial polygamy).

        3. It was Christianity, and nothing else, that finally rid the world of the plague of slavery. What slavery was, under the Torah, must be evaluated according to the economic conditions of the time. What exactly could a destitute man do, apply for welfare from the government? There was no government. He bound himself over to a man who could give him food and shelter. That said, the Torah is very clear that the slave has rights, and in any case all slaves must be set free during the sabbatical year. Slaves, or servants, were part of the family and the household. The whole thrust of the Bible, though, is away from bondage and towards freedom.

        4. The Church was not committed to Ptolemy. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa had suggested more than a hundred years before Galileo that the sun was the center of the heavenly spheres. Copernicus had taken up the suggestion; he was a Catholic priest. When Galileo was writing, there were several “live” models for the solar system. One was heliocentric, one was geocentric, and others were combinations of the two. The Pope had employed many of the best astronomers of the time. They declared that Galileo had not proved his hypothesis, and so the Pope ordered him to teach it as a model and not as physical fact. They were right that he had not proved the hypothesis; some of his arguments were very weak, and the astronomers knew it (Galileo argued that the tides were not principally caused by the moon). So the Church sent Galileo to live in a villa in Florence. She was wrong to do that. That is nothing, absolutely nothing in the balance against what secular states in the twentieth century have done to thinkers who have opposed them. I’ll take that Galileo; you take all the intellectuals murdered over a hundred years by atheistic goons. And that’s not even touching the destruction of careers on account of political correctness, right now, in this supposedly enlightened nation.

        5. There was no “the” Inquisition. You need to specify which one you are talking about, and then find out who was in charge of it, what they did, and how that compared against what other judicial systems were doing. Clue: Henry II wanted clerics to be tried in royal courts rather than in ecclesiastical courts, because the punishments in the latter tended to be much lighter. Becket opposed him…

        6. The Index, ah, the Index. I am assuming that you do not believe that libraries ought to carry copies of Hustler and Penthouse. I am assuming that you do not believe that porn should be taught in schools. The principle behind the Index, then, you admit; and the only question then is its application. The Index never prevented books from being printed. It was a list of things that Catholics should either not read or be wary of reading.

        7. Birth control — you mean the whole Sexual Revolution. You want to see what that Revolution has done? Go to East Saint Louis. Go to Baltimore. Go to Detroit. Go to any prison in the country. Try to teach kids in a city school, when none of them is growing up with both a mother and a father. It has been an unmitigated disaster.

        • Kyle

          “Christianity immediately raised the status of women considerably”? Not in the Celtic and Norse world it didn’t… Celtic and Norse Women experienced quite a notable reduction in their freedoms and liberties with the onset of Roman/Greek Christian culture.

          • GG

            Such as?

            • Kyle

              Under Brehon and Hywel Dda Law (Early Irish, Scottish and Welsh Celtic Law) women retained the standing to bring cases against men, even when married. They could divorce their husbands on the basis of neglect or mistreatment and not just because of infidelity, they maintained full rights over their property even after getting married and they could speak for or on behalf of men. Similar codes existed across Celtic Northern Europe and even within the predominately Celtic regions of the Roman Empire outside of major Roman cities and towns. Celtic woman could fight in battles and wars, they could lead men into battle and often did, they could be chiefs or heads of state even if there were viable male hairs down the line of succession. However all of these freedoms became a thing of the past with the onset of Roman/Greek Christian culture in Northern Europe.

          • Tony

            Tell it to Sigrid Undset, who studied Norse culture and women’s place in it all her life long, and wrote masterpieces about it.

            All nonsense, all feminist nonsense, desperate to try to cobble together some big old matriarchy somewhere, from a bit of a goddess here, a bit of a priestess there, a legend of a lady warrior here, and a princess there. What the Norse were like can be gathered from the social assumptions we find in the early English poetry and in the sagas. They weren’t matriarchs.

            • Kyle

              Please see my comment below.

            • DE-173

              It’s nonsense to believe that a martial and imperial society would accept matriarchy.
              Men will always have a physical advantage at swinging swords and swilling mead…

              • Tony

                “Physical advantage” is an understatement. You might as well say that grown men have a physical advantage over 11 year old boys.

                As far as women in the middle ages are concerned, they had MORE liberty and more opportunity for work and for owning property than they would have again until the Industrial Revolution. That is because of the localism of the middle ages; town charters and so forth….

                • DE-173

                  “”Physical advantage” is an understatement.”

                  Let me expand on my understatement.

                  The bench press remains an imperfect, signature indicator of upper body strength. (The NFL has a standard test of performing as many repetitions as possible with 225 pounds, the record is 53, and most 230-260 pound linebackers do 20-30 “reps”, all concentrate on this life, and some have pharmaceutical assistance).

                  At my gym, most males can do at least 225 once, unless they are really young, new or infrequent lifters. The most I’ve seen done is 455, but I’ve yet to see a woman even attempt 185, no matter how fit she appears. Few go ever above 135.

                  This doesn’t even begin to address the advantages that accrue from body mass, aggression and other physical attributes.

                  “That is because of the localism of the middle ages; town charters and so forth….”
                  Maybe we need remedial subsidiarity classes. We’ll start with Bishops that show unbounded enthusiasm for central government activity.

            • ForChristAlone

              and besides, Undset was a convert to “big, bad” Catholicism

        • Bucky Inky

          Re: Christianity raising the status of women

          What is ironic is that Christianity raised the status of women and men, but nobody talks about what it did for men because nobody cares about the general status of men.

    • DE-173

      You have yellow eyes, Scat Farkus.

      • Fred

        I read that somewhere recently.

        • DE-173

          Many Scat Farkus’ are here and many have yellow eyes, Fred.

          • Fred

            Yes, I see the kinship of the clan (not with a K).

          • M

            DE-173 seems to be the Scattiest Farkusest of the lot!

    • ForChristAlone

      Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it………

    • M

      No longer gays. Read what is coming out of the new synod, which describes gays as people with ‘gifts and talents to offer the Christian community”

  • Fred

    Anybody re-read Cleon Skousen’s book lately. It actually scares the heck out of me when I realize how many have been implemented into our society over 4+ decades, but pay particular attention to no.’s 24-26, and 38-41, then read the rest. Rest assured that we didn’t get here by accident, the forces of perversion have been at work for quite a long time.

  • Paul

    Excellent article !

  • Rick L.

    Wow. Neurotic, absurd, and hysterical (not in a good way).

    • DE-173

      You have yellow eyes, Scat Farkus.

  • Tony

    I try to see things as they are.

    Let’s suppose that Group X is full of people with a profound psychological disorder. It results in an affective life that is not in concord with reality. We don’t have to specify which disorder it is. Let it suffice to say that it is profound and that it involves something of the unreal. What should we expect? A lot of obvious things:

    1. We should expect other psychological disorders.
    2. We should expect some pathological behavior, directed either toward the self or toward others.
    3. We should expect hypersensitivity to any criticism that probes near the disorder.
    4. We should expect compulsive returns to the “scene of the crime,” whether that was the first evil submission to the disorder, or the first evil done to the person who then develops the disorder as a consequence.
    5. We should expect a degree of irrationality, when the patient feels threatened, that characterizes children with emotional problems.
    6. We should expect self-destructive behavior, or preoccupation with disease, decay, and death.
    7. We should expect envy or hatred of the normal.
    8. We should expect some over-compensation, some doubling-down upon the syndrome.

    • GG

      Bravo!! I think #7 is especially insightful.

      • DE-173

        Especially in light of a peculiar subgroup known as “bug chasers”.

    • Daniel P

      1-8 would all be exacerbated by a culture that normalizes this disorder. Orson Scott Card wrote a book about a society where obsessive compulsive disorder was seen as a virtue, and those with the disorder were honored and excused for their mistakes. It’s a very interesting sort of reflection on the situation now, though the book was written 20 years ago.

      • DE-173

        A mild and managed case of OCD IS a virtue is some fields, such as accounting and IT. One of my favorite interview questions for prospective staff: “How do you arrange your shoes in your closet”. I don’t care whether how they do it, as long they do. Color, use, age all are good answers. “I just put them in there” will invitably be the marker of a person without the underlying need for order that makes for a good accountant or IT professional.

        I am rather troubled by your linkage between OCD and SSA.

        • Daniel P

          A mild and managed case of SSA isn’t a problem to anyone either, DE. The novel is about extreme cases, where dysfunctions were encouraged.

          • DE-173

            OCD is not the cause of SSA.

            • Daniel P

              Yes, I agree. Ummm…?

              • DE-173

                You brought it up, I’m the one wondering about the relationship, if any?

        • elarga

          I only own two pairs of shoes. Guess I wouldn’t get hired.

          • DE-173

            Temperate purchasing habits are virtue, they reduce the risk of employee theft.

          • DE-173

            No, owning two pair of shoes would show two things:

            1.) Economy of living, which makes you present less of a risk of employee theft.

            2.) A desire for simplicity, which is also a virtue.

            If you answer was “I own two pair of shoes, so I have little need to organize them by an attribute, I would be inclined to view your candidacy favorably.

    • Guest

      9. We should expect recourse to pseudo-science that deems disordered behavior “natural.”
      10. We should expect unrelenting recourse to legislative and judicial activism that deems disordered behavior “lawful.”
      11. We should expect the hijacking and redefining of Christian virtues, with the goal of persuading nominal/uninformed Christians to condone disordered behavior.
      12. We should expect a rejection of Natural Law and the ignorance of valid first principles.
      13. We should expect disordered behavior to be argued as a “civil right” and be falsely linked to legitimate civil rights.

  • scottrose

    The heterosupremacy delusion is as a bad as the master race delusion.

    • GG

      It is called normality.

    • DE-173

      Anything that ensures the continuation of the species is supreme. Homodeviance has given the world once thing (V08 and 44.0).

    • John200

      Dear scottrose,

      First point: You will remember this comment because I said it all to you last year. It went unrefuted by you and the other little boys you like to play with.

      The homo”sex”ual illusion is as bad as the mastur batory illusion. Precisely as bad, because homo”sex”ual activity is always masturbation, although masturbation is not always homo”sex”ual.

      As you know, Scott, homo”sex”ual activity is not sex. It is masturbation, sometimes forced, sometimes mutual, and always destructive to:
      1)the homo”sex”ual masturbator,
      2)the man he is destroying,
      3)others who would have benefited if these boys had learnt about sex, then used what they had learned, and
      4)society at large, which pays the cost of the consequences of these activities and their consequences. The amount is in the multiple billions of dollars annually.

      All these arguments go unanswered by homo”sex”ual trolls because there is no good reply from the homo”sex”ual perspective.

      Troll on, boys. It is always the same dreary thing with you obsessives.

    • ForChristAlone

      Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it

  • scottrose

    Considering that Brittany Newmark-Klein filed an anti-gay court brief in which she stated that she also writes as “Rivka Edelman,” on what basis does the above writer allege that Rivka Edelman and Brittany Newmark-Klein are not the same person? Did Brittany Newmark-Klein lie about being “Rivka Edelman” in her court filing?

  • FrankW

    Thanks for posting this; it needs to be read by everyone who takes a stance on this issue.

    The plight this woman and her children went through is heartbreaking. Her quote about gay families only existing via unnatural means gets straight to the heart of the matter.

    It is the laws of nature that require the union of a man and a woman to not only procreate the race, but raise up their offspring together. A man is not equipped physically, mentally or emotionally to take on the role of a mother; nor is a woman equipped physically, mentally or emotionally to take on the role of a father. It is the laws of nature, and nature’s God which mandate this fact, and there is nothing any human person can do to change that. Marriage is about family, and the natural ability to have a family is a prerequisite for having one.

    To sacrifice the upbringing of a child on the altar of political correctness is one of the most heartless, selfish actions any parent can make: It is the exact opposite of the vocation of self-sacrifice to which God calls all parents.

    Marriage has been reduced to “civil rights” status by our government. Next up: parenthood will be declared a civil right, and the government will have usurped for itself (as it has done with marriage) the power to determine who can and who cannot participate. It’s coming….

    • DE-173

      That horse was put in the gate about the time “it takes a village”.
      Welcome to Huxley’s nightmare.

  • Patrick Smith

    Umm, I always get the Christian Bully boys after me it happens all the time the bullyboy Christians are relentless and like to call it love but its really hate wrapped in misuse of scripture. I will provide no evidence of this since the writer of the public discourse article didn’t either.

  • clintoncps

    “The only ones to hold them off are the more sensible of the LGBT movement.”

    Austin, did you actually write the above? Sensible LGBT activists?

    This escalating abuse of people — especially children — due to LGBT mythology was inevitable from the moment homosexuality was de-listed from the catalog of psychological disorders 40 years ago. Unlike Russia, the US and many other “advanced” countries in the West are determined to keep going down the same deranged road instead of having the moral and rational courage to get off the highway to degeneracy.

    Here are some of the results of accepting the false premise that homosexuality is “harmless”:

    1. Anyone who objects to the fabrication of homosexual marriage is subjected to threats, intimidation, job loss, law suits, and loss of their business.

    2. Children who are created through artificial methods at the behest of homosexual practitioners are robbed of their basic human right to be raised by their natural father and mother; or, in the case of adoption, adopted children, who have a basic human right to be placed in the care of an adoptive father and mother, who alone can model human family life for them, are instead surrendered to homosexual practitioners in order to validate their sexual entanglement.

    3. LGBT mythology is propagated in schools under the guise of “curriculum” to even very young children, rendering them incapable of forming rational thought in the area of male/female sexual complementarity, human family life, and the authentic relationships between fathers, mothers, and children. Further, LGBT mythology is actually a psycho-sexual molestation of school children — the foreplay — that not only gets them questioning if their body is telling them the truth about their being boys or girls, but will groom them for open pedophilia in the near future.

    Austin, the only reason I can speak in such frank and forceful terms about this is that there is no such thing as a homosexual. Such a mythological creature does not exist, any more than a centaur does. The game is about sexual sin, wicked and abusive behaviour, and people torturing out any and every bizarre excuse to hold on to and normalize their willful complicity with sexual sin — and their unwillingness to resist it and stop identifying their most intimate self-image with it. Though now more terms have been invented in an attempt to expand the range of homosexualism into an increaing number of fetishistic subsets (LGBTQQI etc), the truth remains: a rotten tree does not bear good fruit.

    Homosexuality must be re-listed as the psychological disorder it is and always has been. Until that happens, we’ll be left uncritically applauding those “sensible” homosexualist groups who seem less depraved and rapacious than the LGBT boogy-man du jour.

    Your friend and brother in Christ,

    Clinton

  • scottrose

    Could Austin Ruse’s Violent Rhetoric Endanger C-FAM’s Status with the UN?

    http://www.splcenter.org/blog/

    By Hatewatch Staff on March 19, 2014 – 3:43 pm, Posted in Anti-LGBT, Extremist Propaganda

    Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), an anti-LGBT hate group that lobbies at the United Nations, has had a bad week.

    First, Ruse garnered outrage last Wednesday when he stated on the air that the “hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities…should all be taken out and shot.” He was speaking about a female student at Duke University who works as an actress in the pornography industry. Ruse blamed Duke’s women’s studies department, claiming that the student “learned this” there.

    In the wake of his remarks, Ruse doubled down and engaged in Twitter flame wars with detractors and lambasted the blog Right Wing Watch (RWW), which had posted audio and a transcript from the show. Ruse railed against RWW, saying that “The pajama boys over at Right Wing Watch have their panties all in a twist about what I said.” He also called liberals “dumb,” “stupid” and “idiotic” and claimed that his remarks about shooting leftists shouldn’t be taken seriously.

    On Thursday, Ruse deactivated his Twitter account, grousing that it was overrun by a “leftist swarm” and on Friday, he was removed from American Family Radio (AFR), which is run by the extreme anti-LGBT group American Family Association (AFA), which allows all manner of bigotry on its airwaves, particularly from Bryan Fischer. Apparently, calling for the shooting of university officials was a little too extreme even for them.

    In a Facebook statement, AFR announced that “The fill-in host on AFR who made those comments is no longer on the air with us and will not be filling in on AFR in the future” and that the views were “un-Christian.” AFR also scrubbed Ruse’s shows from their archives (the Facebook announcement appears to have been removed, as well). Ruse finally apologized, sort of, on Friday, telling Talking Points Memo that he regretted using the expression “taken out and shot” and that it wasn’t meant to be taken literally.

    Yesterday, the fallout continued. One of the four board members of C-FAM (Ruse is one) resigned. On Monday, the group Faithful America started a petition asking the board member, Monsignor Anthony Frontiero, a prominent Catholic priest of St. Joseph Cathedral in Manchester, New Hampshire, to resign. Yesterday, Frontiero informed Faithful America via email that he had.

    Frontiero served on the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace at the Vatican and from 1999-2002, and he served as diplomatic attaché of the Permanent Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations. He represented the Vatican on issues such as women’s rights and sustainable and social development. During that time, he was also director of special projects at the Path to Peace Foundation and officially represented the Holy See at human rights, democracy and criminal justice meetings of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the UN. He was appointed to rector of St. Joseph’s in 2011.

    This isn’t the first time Ruse has made statements about potential violence. Catholics for Choice released a report in 2001 (PDF; may not load in some browsers) documenting Ruse’s and C-FAM’s efforts at the United Nations to undermine efforts to stop discrimination against women.

    In 2000, the report notes, Ruse addressed the conspiracist, anti-communist and anti-Obama Cardinal Mindzenty Foundation whose current president is Eleanor Schlafly, a sister-in law of Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly. When Ruse addressed the Foundation, he reportedly told a story about talking to a Catholic priest about killing Hillary Clinton. “Hillary [Clinton] is the ‘conquering queen’ at the United Nations,” Ruse said. “I was standing on the floor of the UN a couple of months ago, when she was thinking about running, and I was talking to a priest from the Holy See delegation and — I shouldn’t tell you this but he offered me guaranteed absolution if I just took her out — and not on a date.”

    Ruse and C-FAM have been lobbying against sexual and reproductive rights, abortion, and LGBT people at the UN and abroad for years. In 2012, Ruse and C-FAM even helped block a UN treaty protecting the rights of people with disabilities because, the groups claimed, it was “pro-abortion.” The wording of the document stated that people with disabilities should have access to healthcare, including “in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes.”

    C-FAM is an offshoot of the hardline anti-abortion group Human Life International (HLI, founded in 1981), whose ties to violent anti-abortionists and extreme tactics made it too controversial for the UN. Its founder, Paul Marx, a DC-based Catholic priest, also had a history of claiming that the pro-choice movement was full of Jews, who in his words, were perpetrating another Holocaust. HLI was denied consultative status in 1993, so it set up C-FAM in 1997 as its UN lobbying arm, and the organizationshifted its rhetoric to include vague terminology like “traditional values” and “respect for sovereignty” (useful for countries that employ repressive policies and wish to avoid scrutiny for human rights violations).

    This year C-FAM was approved for consultative status at the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which is concerned with the world’s social, economic, and environmental issues. ECOSOC will review the organizations in July and in most cases, will approve consultative status. Non-governmental organizations that are granted this status then have access to ECOSOC and its subsidiary bodies and the various human rights mechanisms of the UN and various special events organized by the President of the General Assembly.

    If C-FAM is approved, expect even more international outreach and anti-LGBT propagandizing from Ruse. Over the years, he has railed against abortion and voiced support for laws criminalizing homosexuality. Last year, he voiced support for Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law (which criminalizes free speech with regard to homosexuality). Ruse called the law a noble quest for “human rights” andsigned a joint statement (along with other anti-LGBT groups) in support of it.

    On C-FAM blog’s, Turtle Bay and Beyond, blogger Stefano Gennarini called the law nothing more than a “tax on homosexual PDA” (public displays of affection) and argued that discouraging homosexuality among children “simply codifies that Russia truly is interested in protecting its children.” Following the passage of that law, violence against Russian LGBT people has dramatically increased.

    It’s clear that Ruse’s definition of “human rights” does not include LGBT people. He has opposedmaking sexual orientation and gender identity new categories for non-discrimination in international law and called homosexuality “harmful to public health and morals.” When talking about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), he wondered why gay people put up with transgender people and allow them to “lead” on ENDA. “Most Americans,” Ruse said, “are rightly put off by such displays of psychological disturbances.”

    We’ll find out in July whether the UN’s ECOSOC will be “put off” by Ruse’s calls for violence and inflammatory rhetoric

    • cestusdei

      They bullies are here.

      • GG

        As usual.

    • PF

      What does this have to do with the article he wrote?

    • DE-173

      You have yellow eyes, Scat Farkus.

    • FrankW

      Ruse is calling for violence? You might want to read what he wrote instead of someone (who disagrees with him) else’s opinion of what he wrote. That helps give your stance credibility.

      Interesting how anyone who has a different take than you do on this issue is guilty of a hate crime. Once again, the people who demand tolerance of everyone else cannot stand it when someone with whom they disagree offers a differing view with substance.

      If you want others to be tolerant of your opinions, you might want to offer some tolerance yourself. What goes around comes around.

      • “Violence” is one of those Newspeak words that basically means “disagreement with left-wing ideology.”

      • GG

        When one is unhinged everything is termed “hate”.

    • Austin Ruse

      Guess what, creep. We got UN accreditation. And much of this SPLC hit piece are lies. Typical of the hard left and the sexual anarchists.

    • ForChristAlone

      Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it…….

  • cestusdei

    The gay bullies are not few in number. They are legion.

  • SammySeattle

    It’s a shame that “Janna Darnelle” has never been able to move on with her life and instead has made a career of defaming her ex-husband and the gay community at large.

    • Defamation means making false statements. What did she say that is false?

    • GG

      How can one defame the “gay” community? Is that even possible?

      • SammySeattle

        Let’s start with Ms. Darnelle’s accusation that her ex-husband devalues women.

        • GG

          The guy who left his marriage to take up with a man? That person? His “values” are strange to say the least.

        • ForChristAlone

          Are you a hate-filled homosexual?. Sounds like it.

    • ForChristAlone

      Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it…..

      • SammySeattle

        Projection.

        • ForChristAlone

          You are full of hate. Turn to Jesus.

          • SammySeattle

            More projection.

          • SammySeattle

            More projection.

  • JohnnyC

    What Ruse characterizes as an attempt to crush Rivka Edleman/B.A. Newmark-Klein is EXACTLY what she did to Jeremy Hooper & Scott Rose, only it wasn’t done behind a veil of anonymity and had the benefit of being true.

  • Ron Watts

    The mention of gay culture is troubling. Remember we are “born that way” and otherwise there is nothing we have in common on which to grow a culture. A fickle bunch, ready to trash our “brothers” at the slightest provication, our “culture” is as thin as the skin of our precious egos.

    • Guest_august

      No one is born “Gay”. We are all born sinners. But no one is born “Gay”

      • ForChristAlone

        and besides, there’s no such thing as a “gay” person.

  • Has anyone ever considered whether these types of cyberbullying organizers fronting as activists can be prosecuted under RICO? Much of LGBT activism bears a close resemblence to protection rackets. The activists offer public figures and publications protection from the thug enforcers. All they have to do is mouth some platitude about “being inclusive” or at least stay silent on certain issues. Of course, the bosses like Jeremy Hooper stay far enough above the dirty work to maintain plausible deniability. This is much like how Al Capone walked freely through the streets of Chicago, attended the opera and so forth, and referred to himself as a “businessmen.” If a few of his lower-level managers got a bit too aggressive, well, that’s certainly nothing he can be blamed for, is it? He naturally had NO IDEA AT ALL where they would get the crazy idea that thug tactics were okay. Likewise, Jeremy Hooper finds it abhorrent that anyone would harass people he disagrees with. And yet the top-voted comment on his story about the pseudonymous author is the one that reveals her personal information. If Hooper can be shown to have increased his site’s profit by permitting it to be used as an organizing tool for intimidation, then I think a case could be made for prosecution under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

    • DN

      Wow. Just wow.

      • If you’re being sarcastic, can you show the flaw in my reasoning?

        • DN

          Sorry I wasn’t clear. I should have explained. I was saying wow because now I have to do all this paperwork to report up through the gay cabal chain of command. I was looking forward to knocking off early to start the weekend.

          • Ha ha. No, if there were paperwork, that would ruin plausible deniability. So relax! Just make sure you’re running your interference to keep up plausible deniability, no paper pushing required.

            • DN

              My serious reply is that you’re free to pursue any lawsuit you wish. I think this site’s readers would be interested to hear the results.

              • Prosecution, not a lawsuit. I wouldn’t worry though, Eric Holder’s replacement isn’t going to be any better than he was.

            • Arcadius, I was writing a lengthy response to your earlier comments, believing you wanted to have a rational discussion in good faith. This “Al Capone” comment proves you do not. I will not waste my time.

              Have a nice weekend

              • Keep upvoting those doxxing comments.

                Once more here’s Reddit’s policy on posting personal information: https://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq#wiki_is_posting_personal_information_ok.3F

                Are you sure their lawyers might not have recommended something like that? You sure there’s no law against knowingly providing a forum for conspiracy to harass and intimidate IF YOU BENEFIT FROM IT? (Racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations act.)

                Does not having such a policy benefit you? Do you sincerely believe your claim to have no link — none at all — to people who frequent your site is credible? Why was the doxxing comment the highest voted on your article? Do you know what “doxxing” means? Follow the money.

              • ForChristAlone

                Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it……..

          • ForChristAlone

            Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it……

      • Wait, did you seriously just equate me with Al Capone? For being one of the countless Internet site owners (including the owners of the site) who allow unmoderated or lightly moderated commenting?

        By all means, please try to make this public case. I insist.

        • DN

          I think you hit reply on the wrong response, Jeremy hehe =D

        • I likened you to Al Capone. If you make a profit or otherwise benefit from the exposure of personal information in the service of harassment and intimidation, which you aid and abet, that’s similar to racketeering, isn’t it?

        • ForChristAlone

          Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it.?

    • JoeMyGod

      Eye roll. You clearly have zero grasp of the RICO statutes, which call for an overt conspiracy or an attempt to create one. If forum owners were liable under such statutes, half of the wingnut-o-sphere would be under indictment.

      • Attacking a person then prominently displaying their personal information immediately below the article could be considered attempt to create a conspiracy. Most sites right or left don’t allow that. If the site owner benefits from resultant harassment that is racketeering.

        • DN

          You’ve made that point several times now. So I say take it to the authorities and report back to us.

          • And yet no one has rebutted it. If Hooper continues to permit his site to be used to organize intimidation rackets that benefit his organization, you don’t think it’s possible he might run into some legal trouble?

            • DN

              I don’t know – I’m not a lawyer. My expertise is elsewhere. My suggestion is to have people whose job it is to do this kind of thing adjudicate it. Do you not understand the point I’m making?

          • ForChristAlone

            Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it…..

      • ForChristAlone

        Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it….

  • JoeMyGod

    dd

    • Objectivetruth

      Joe’s your god? Who’s Joe?

      “and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.”

      • JoeMyGod

        Oooga booga!

        • Objectivetruth

          Funny.

          Not so funny, at the moment of your death.

          • R. K. Ich

            The MO of most leftists is that of derision or mockery. That’s because reason has to check out in the face of blind fundamentalism. If the soul of civilization weren’t at stake it would be actually funny to watch.

            • Objectivetruth

              It’s sad, but also very scary. Do the “gay” souls that post here know that their denial of knowing Christ in this life, will mean Christ denying knowing them in the afterlife? I don’t think they realize this. We must pray for them, offer sacrifices on their behalf for the salvation of their souls. They could die tonight. Their souls are in great danger. Pity them, they need repentance.

            • DE-173

              Long before Hitler burned the Jews, he held them to relentless ridicule. As a reminder, Nazi = national SOCIALIST.

              One of the great lies of the world: Hitler was a monster of the right.

          • DE-173

            Could come sooner than he thinks. Anybody whose lived long, (say past 30) enough knows people who said “see you on Monday” on Friday and despite being “perfectly health”, never saw their co-workers again.

        • ForChristAlone

          Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it…

        • Austin Ruse

          Game set match gang. This is the best he’s got. LOL.

    • Scott W.

      Aaaaannndd…..once again….unsourced.

      • JoeMyGod

        Text of the Kremlin resolution: http://bit.ly/1yXdRem

        • Scott W.

          Nice try, but show me a direct quote from Mr. Ruse calling for the imprisonment or execution of homosexuals.

          • JoeMyGod

            If you cannot grasp the connection between an official resolution made by the organization that Ruse heads and the man himself, you are definitely the right reader for this site.

            • Objectivetruth

              But above, you state: “Ruse condemned the United Nations for opposing the gay death penalty. ”

              So you’re definitely referencing a direct quote from Austin. Where is it? What were his exact words?

              It seems like you might be quite comfortable with lies and embellishment. I’d recommend you redact your above posting.

              • JoeMyGod

                I provided the link.

                • Objectivetruth

                  I read both of your links, twice. I watched the video.

                  No where in either link does it state (as you posted): “Ruse condemned the United Nations for opposing the gay death penalty.”

                  It seems you have committed the sin of calumny.

                  From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Offenses against Truth.”

                  “Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity. (1753)

                  • JoeMyGod

                    I don’t believe in sin, but if I did, I accuse you of the sin of obtuseness.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      I accuse you of being a hate-filled homosexual. You have committed a hate crime against a heterosexual. You should be prosecuted for this.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      But you did lie.

                      One simple lie……and any credibility you have is shot. All of your postings must now be looked at with the lenses of this lie.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      “I don’t believe in sin…” Of course you don’t — since you live in a sinless world where transgressions are artificially constructed concepts to shame and control the masses, perhaps your rant over the wrongness of Austin Ruse’s political views is no less a move to shame him into conformity. Nothing objectively wrong with his views, mind you, just that they don’t fit your comfort zone, right?

                      This is fun: what other “sins” in your world view aren’t really violations of how things are supposed to be?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Show a direct quote, creep.

                    • JoeMyGod

                      Here’s a direct quote for you: “My daughters go to a little private religious school and we pay an arm and a leg for it precisely to keep them away from all of this kind of nonsense. I do hope that they go to a Christian college or university and to keep them so far away from the hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities, who should all be taken out and shot.” – Austin Ruse, March 12th 2014, speaking on the the national American Family Radio Network.

                      That call for the murders of university officials got you FIRED immediately, didn’t it?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      LOL. What a joke you are. show the quote, creep, where i denounced The UN for opposing the gay death penalty, creep. Show it. Put up or shut up. Maybe you’ve taken too many poppers, creep. Show it.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • JoeMyGod

                      From Right Wing Watch: “During a CPAC panel on supposed U.S. spending “to promote abortion and homosexuality worldwide,” Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam), attacked protections for people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity in United Nations studies on violence and execution. Ruse first lamented that an initially-removed reference to sexual orientation was restored to a resolution condemning summary, extrajudicial and arbitrary executions, and went on to bemoan a decision by the Human Rights Council to study “discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world.”

                      THEIR headline: “CPAC: Austin Ruse Condemns Efforts to Stop Violence against LGBT Community.”

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Ok, creep. Show me actually saying that. That’s their characterization but note, there’s no quotes. You know what quote marks are, don’t you creep?

                      Sent from my iPad

                    • JoeMyGod
                    • M

                      The bit about “hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities, who should all be taken out and shot” was bad enough. Can anyone imagine Pope Francis saying that?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I can. He’s a passionate man used to colloquial language. He’s not a whiny nitwit.

                    • M

                      I can’t. He’s a compassionate man who respects other people. He’s not a bullyboy.

                    • M

                      Austin Ruse’s language is at odds with Catholicism. Look at the gentle and merciful language coming out of the current synod. Calling someone “creep” is not right. JoeMyGod, please look to Pope Francis as an example of how to treat people with true Christian charity. Please don’t think that what you see here is the norm.

                • ForChristAlone

                  Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it..

                • Austin Ruse

                  It’s not there, creep, because it doesn’t exist.

                • Asmondius

                  ‘I provided the link.’ = hummahummahummahumma….

            • ForChristAlone

              Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it.!.

            • Austin Ruse

              What a moron. Now I head the World Congress of Families or I head the Russian conference? What an idiot.

              • JoeMyGod

                You head C-FAM, which is a member of the World Congress of Families. Are you now saying that you DENOUNCE the WCF’s call for more nations to criminalize homosexuality? Go on the record with that and I will publish it. My site gets 2.5 million hits a month, your message WILL get heard.

                • Austin Ruse

                  Let me see, creep. You said I denounced the UN for opposing the gay death penalty but you can’t show it. Then you say I head a group that put out a resolution in Russia but you can’t show that either. What an idiot. Chaps too tight today, creep?

                  • JoeMyGod

                    Do you deny that you head C-FAM? Do you deny that C-FAM is a member of the World Congress of Families? Do you denounce the WCF resolution that calls for more nations to criminalize homosexuality?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Now you say the WCF has called for the criminalization of “homosexuality”. Can you show me where, creep. And be specific. A direct quote.

                    • JoeMyGod

                      And again you refuse to answer. I provided the full link to the resolution.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      But show us the specific passage that calls for the criminalization of “homosexuality”. Also, show that it’s a document of the WCF. do both of those and I’ll be happy to comment.

                    • JoeMyGod

                      You know perfectly well that LEADERS of the WCF authored that resolution and attended that Kremlin conference under the aegis of a different group in order not to be charged with violating federal US rules against conspiring with Russia. Right Wing Watch BUSTED you on that:

                      “As Buzzfeed and Mother Jones have reported over the past several days, a planned conference at the Kremlin organized by the Illinois-based World Congress of Families, which was supposedly cancelled after Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, is in fact going ahead this week with only nominal changes to its sponsorship line-up. In fact, World Congress of Families officials Don Feder and Larry Jacobs were on hand at the event’s opening today to take questions from reporters…being careful to give their affiliations as their personal consulting operations rather than WCF.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Really? Larry Jacobs authored the resolution? Can you show that?

                      Also, creep, where’s the quote calling for the “criminalization of homosexuality.” Tick-tock. Now losen up those chaps, take a hit of amyl nitrate and find it! Waiting….

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Good golly, creep. It’s not a long document. Just cut and paste.

                    • JoeMyGod

                      “We appeal to all people who acknowledge the significance and values of the Natural Family for preserving human civilization: To uphold the interests of children and to work for the adoption of
                      legislative bans on all types of propaganda concerning homosexual relationships
                      in the environment of children and juveniles and to initiate and support scientific research to study the conditions and prospects of developing a Natural Family, as well as studying the negative social and psychological effects of raising children in same-gender couples.”

                      As you know perfectly well, these so-called “propaganda bans” have resulted in ARRESTS and IMPRISONMENT in the countries that have adopted them.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Yeah, hmmmm now where’s the part calling for ” the criminalization of homosexuality”. Take another hit and keepa lookin’.

                    • JoeMyGod

                      Propaganda bans ARE criminalization. Stop lying.

                    • JoeMyGod

                      As I said, the cowardly Larry Jacobs made sure that the WCF name did not appear on the document in order to evade charges from the United States.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      So, creep, you’re speculating? Golly, you never said that!

                      Now about that quote about, what was it? Oh yeah, the “criminalization of homosexuality”. Maybe something like calling for homosexuality to be illegal, right? Where’s that?

                      This is hilarious.

                    • JoeMyGod

                      You are still refusing to say if you endorse the Kremlin resolution.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      No, not at all. Just waiting for your to prove your assertion, creep. Still waiting.

                    • JoeMyGod

                      I have proven my assertions several times. You are a leader of C-FAM. C-FAM is a member of WCF. Leaders of WCF attended the Kremlin conference which called for more nations to institute anti-gay laws. Therefore, YOU want more nations to institute anti-gay laws. If you do NOT, just say so.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Oh, so the resolution didn’t call for outlawing homosexuality? But, creep, you said it did. Are you now saying it didn’t call for outlawing homosexuality?

                    • JoeMyGod

                      I said the resolution calls for criminalizing homosexuality. Which is does. “Anti-propaganda” laws result in criminal charges. Why are you dancing around the facts? Could it be that you are actually embarrassed?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      So, you define ” homosexuality” as talking about it? I thought “homosexuality” was either the attraction to members of the same sex or having genital activity with one. Now you say it’s just talking about it? So, that’s”homosexuality” ? I’ve now had an extended conversation with you and others about homosexuality. Are you saying that makes me gay? Wow! Who woulda thunk it!

                      So, if talking about it makes you gay, does that mean you’re not gay if you stay at home going to town on your boyfriend but your still not gay if you don’t talk about it? Cool!

                    • JoeMyGod

                      It’s very apparent that you do not intend to have a serious conversation about your group’s attempt to criminalize homosexuality in other nations and are merely resorting to childish evasions about the semantics of your anti-gay pogrom. But I guess when your hate speech is even TOO MUCH for the American Family Association, who FIRED you for it, that’s to be expected.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      So, let’s sum up.

                      This creep first said I support the death penalty for gays but he can’t seem to show it.

                      Second, he said I’m head of the world congress of families and head of a recent conference in Russia. Both obviously false.

                      Third, he said a resolution produced by the organizers of the Russian conference calls for the outlawing of homosexuality but he can’t show that either.

                      He says it was the document was written by Larry Jacobs but can’t show that either.

                      And then he says “homosexuality” is simply conversation.

                      Ladies and gents, I give you the gay intelligentsia!

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Btw. Cfam is not a member of WCF. WCF isn’t even a membership organization. But, our creepy interlocutor thinks so. Finally, Cfam hasn’t signed the russian’s resolution.

                      Joe.What.A.Moron

                    • JoeMyGod

                      The SPLC says otherwise: “U.S.-based groups that are involved in the planning stages of the Moscow conference include Focus on the Family, Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian Broadcasting Network and the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). Austin Ruse, C-FAM’s president and a longtime WCF organizer, recently said that liberal university officials should be “taken out and shot.” A C-FAM board member resigned in response.”

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You can’t believe all you read in SPLC! LOL.

                      Sent from my iPad

                    • JoeMyGod

                      Why are you so keen on disavowing the groups that you WORK for? This is all very fascinating.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I work for Cfam, creep. Didn’t you know that?

                      Sent from my iPad

                    • JoeMyGod

                      Yes. Do you also want ME to be “taken out and shot”?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Joe.The.Idiot.

                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Oh, poor poor creep. Shown to be an idiot, trying desperately with all your might to gain the advantage after you’ve had to eat your hat. Funny.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • JoeMyGod

                      Again you won’t answer and resort to childish name-calling. I’ve proven my points with quotes, video, and links to respected sources. YOU continue to evade and deny.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Nope. You haven’t. Pathetic.

                      Sent from my iPad

                    • JoeMyGod

                      Why won’t you answer a simple question? Do you or do you not endorse the Kremlin resolution?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I’ve already said so. We have not signed it.

                    • StraightGrandmother

                      Just because you were not courageous enough to sign it doesn’t say that you don’t endorse it. Why are you being evasive? Just say I don’t endorse it and we can all move on.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I have read your despicable emails to family members. I will not engage with some pone as hateful as you.

                    • M

                      Austin, you’re throwing around terms like “creep”, “idiot”, “moron”, and “liar” and talking about the “hard left” as “human-hating people” who run modern universities and “should be taken out and shot” and yet you call StraightGrandmother hateful? Please stop behaving like a third grader having a tantrum. You are not representing Catholicism by doing this.

                    • Augustus

                      When someone like “JoeMyGod” spends his life purposefully defaming you, lying about you, ignoring evidence to the contrary, for political purposes–in particular, anti-Catholic purposes–he is not worthy of respect. He has earned our scorn. You are part of the problem by showing a lack of curiosity about the context of what Mr. Ruse said about modern universities and about his public statement of regret for using those words. You simply accept the interpretation of his detractors. Why should anyone think you are a fair-minded observer?

                    • JoeMyGod

                      OK, that’s a partial answer. Does your not signing it mean that you reject its call for more nations to criminalize homosexuality?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I absolutely oppose criminalizing SSA.

                    • JoeMyGod

                      Saying that you oppose criminalizing “same-sex attraction” (an impossible thing to do on its face) is not the same as saying you oppose the anti-gay laws called for in the Kremlin resolution. Do you or do you not oppose the resolution?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Oh golly, I absolutely oppose criminalizing homosexuality. You can print that.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Poor poor little creep, trying with all your might to gain the upper hand after being bested all afternoon.

                      Joe.The.Pathetic.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Not disavowing anything. Just trying to keep you honest. Lost cause, I know.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • StraightGrandmother

                      I’m pleased to hear you did not sign the Russian NOT! WCF resolution.
                      Now do you support it or not, even if you didn’t sign it?
                      While you ponder this I’ll remind you of the rights of sexual minorities in regard to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly. I’ll check back later to read if you endorse it or not.

                      Think hard about these rights as who knows what the future holds and if one day you and your side won’t be in the same position of proposals to take your rights away. Is it wise to ban Speech, Association and Assembly?

                    • JoeMyGod

                      LOL. More evasions. Do you deny that you are a leader of C-FAM? Do you deny that C-FAM is a member of WCF? You do you deny that WCF leaders attended the Kremlin conference? Do you DENOUNCE the Kremlin resolution? These are easy questions.

                    • StraightGrandmother

                      Really? He got Fired from the American Family Association? That’s something.

                    • StraightGrandmother

                      Austin, at the very least you are supporting the suppression of Free Speech a bedrock American right. Freedom of Association as groups may not promote homosexuality, Freedom of Assembly as Sexual Minorities may not publicly Assemble and promote their cause. You support the suppression of all of these rights when you support the NOT! WCF Russian Conference resolution.

                    • Which is, of course, why you are screaming to subpoena pastors’ sermons in order to punish them.

                      http://www.chron.com/default/article/City-subpoenas-pastors-sermons-in-equal-rights-5822403.php

                • Austin Ruse

                  Let me get this straight, creep. First you say I denounced the UN for not supporting the gay death penalty but you can’t show where I’ve said that. Right, creep? Then you say I head the WCF or a Ruusian conference but you can’t show that either. Right, creep? This is simply hilarious. Take another, popper, creep.

        • ForChristAlone

          Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it.!!

      • JoeMyGod

        Video of the CPAC speech http://bit.ly/1suM4xo

        • Augustus

          You are a bald-faced liar. There is nothing in the video that suggests that Mr. Ruse called for the execution of homosexuals. You really are desperate.

          • JoeMyGod

            Denouncing the UN for opposing the gay death penalty is a de facto endorsement of the gay death penalty.

            • Augustus

              Maybe you’re not lying. Maybe the more charitable explanation is that you’re just deaf. Mr. Ruse did NOT take a position on the debate over execution. He simply noted what happened to provide context for the comments that followed. What he opposed was the study to inquire into violence against LGBT people and explained why so many countries opposed it. But you simply ignored the explanation (the bulk of the video), perhaps because it did not support the false impression you are trying to give to the public. Mr. Ruse pointed out in the video how gay activists use deceit as a weapon. Your tactic simply confirms his contention.

              • Austin Ruse

                Correct, Augustus. Thank you.

            • ForChristAlone

              Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it.!

              • Bobby P

                Interesting how you constantly call those with a dissenting opinion “hate – filled homosexual,” yet whine about lack of tolerance for your own comments. Pot, let me introduce you to Kettle.

                • ForChristAlone

                  You are loved here, despite your insistence on spewing hate.

            • Austin Ruse

              Liar.

        • ForChristAlone

          Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it!

        • Austin Ruse

          this man is a manifold and manifest liar. The video does not show what he says. I was explaining why the UN tends to oppose the insertion of the phrase ” sexual orientation and gender identity” in any context. The reason is because these are categories the nations of the world overwhelmingly reject.

          • JoeMyGod

            Right Wing Watch disagrees.

            • Austin Ruse

              LOL. SHOW TGE QUOTE CREEP. type it out for all to see, creep.

              Sent from my iPad

    • Austin Ruse

      Lies from a real creep.

      • DN

        You, sir, sicken me.

        • Objectivetruth

          Good. I’m glad he sickens you. The more you attack Austin, the more it confirms he is right. It’s the age old classic battle between what is moral and good (Austin and the Catholic Church) and what is immoral and evil (you and the sodomite community.) We have chosen The ways of Christ, you have chosen the ways of satan.

          • DN

            Please demonstrate what I have done to choose the ways of anything. You don’t know me and I don’t know you.

            • Objectivetruth

              “Your* lord. Not mine.”

              • DN

                I think I see. Could you elaborate? Are you saying that everyone who doesn’t share your theistic views has chosen the ways of Satan?

                • Objectivetruth

                  Nothing exists in a void, a vacuum. A void is always filled. Take away God, there is a void. Something fills that void. God is love. The void that is filled when God (love) is taken away, its opposite, (evil) fills that void.

                  “Truth” is not relativistic, there are not many truths. There is only one Truth. His name is Jesus Christ.

                  Do know of Jesus Christ? Before you attack my argument, have you fully educated yourself on the Christ, and His Catholic Church? Please, I’ve seen too many ignorant attacks from people who do not know Christ’s teachings. But ignorantly attack Him and His Catholic Church.

                  Time on a Saturday is precious. So please think before you respond. If you have not a full understanding of Christ and His Church, I am wasting my time with you. Because if you are just here to ignorantly attack the Catholic Church (which I’ve seen many times before on this Catholic website) I can not engage you. If you have honest,sincere questions about the Church, I’d be more than happy to answer them or guide you towards the correct answer and teaching.

                  But please…..no uneducated games of “gotcha” about the Catholic Church. Sincerely educate yourself first, joust later.

        • Austin Ruse

          Almost everything can be treated these days.

    • ForChristAlone

      Are you a hate-filled homosexual? Sounds like it.

  • Fred

    For good measure, I thought this article would be a good one to include today:

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/huffpo-gay-voices-asks-should-incest-between-consenting-adults-be-legalized

    Interesting the responses too – some afraid that it might open them to ridicule, some free thinkers happy to live and let live.

    Speaking of living and not living, this open letter to the child she is about to murder is also touching though one wonders why bother since they will never be able to read it.

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/woman-posts-open-letter-child-shes-aborting-next-week

  • Maggie 4NoH8

    Perfect fodder for the current state of percusatory delusion…

  • Paul McGuire

    It is pretty telling that the original story that was the subject of criticism had to be published under a pseudonym and on a site that did not allow comments. I thought there was still room for polite debate and discourse. The original article makes a lot of claims that don’t seem facially credible and bring with them many generalized attacks on the gay community as a whole that don’t really belong in the original piece. It is not surprising that the article was then critiqued on many different web sites for the unbelievable claims it makes.

    Still, I do not condone personal attacks on someone for what is written in an opinion piece even someone who wrote something as vile as the original article. People should stand by their statements made publicly and if deemed unacceptable face the consequences. Like it or not, many employers now value diversity and inclusion such that an employee who wrote the original article would likely not be welcomed.

    • DE-173

      Diversity is rubbish. The only diversity that isn’t permitted is diversity of opinion.

      ‘ll believe we have REAL DIVERSITY when we have Catholic History Month, Jewish History Month, Slavic History Month.. you know those minorities where there’s not only been historic discrimination, but it’s still considered acceptable.

      Employers value what makes problems go away. The Lavender Mafia has been very good at contriving indignities, you know like Brendan Eich’s political contributions.

    • ForChristAlone

      Aren’t you an active homosexual?

  • John Albertson

    What kind of signal is Cardinal Dolan sending to the youth of his archdiocese by welcoming a homosexual organization to march in the St. Patrick’s Parade – honoring the patron saint of the archdiocese of New York? I pity the confused world facing the youth of today, especially with confused spiritual shepherds.

    • ForChristAlone

      That’s why Dolan, along with Cardinal Bergolio, need to go.

  • JRDF

    Below is something I read elsewhere. It sure is an “interesting” take on the situation:

    =========
    “Actually the only way to completely end this centuries-long homophobicly, intolerant society; is to educate the children properly about tolerance and sexual freedom. It should be required that every high school, (or at least college) require every student to participate in homosexual acts as requirements to gain a diploma. As we all know, the puritanic constructs of society are nothing more than the regressive homophobic neuroses that has been forced on society by Christians for centuries. The only way to turn from this neuroses is to start teaching the children about sexual freedom and the joys of homosexual love. A truly enlightened individual would be comfortable participating in homosexual and heterosexual love.

    In short, there are no true “gay-supporters”; until the self-anointed “gay-supporters” willfully encourage their children to find true empathy with the homosexual community, through actually experiencing the joys of homosexual acts. Until then, the self-righteous, self-proclaimed “gay-supporters” (AKA closet homophobes) are no better than the bigoted out-spoken homophobes.”

  • Ruth Rocker

    The “peaceful majority” in the homosexual world is no more effective than the “peaceful majority” is in Islam. They stand idly by and let everything bad that is happening continue to happen and never open their mouths. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. And gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone?? Yeah, right!!

    I pray that God will comfort this woman who has been cheated and abused and that she will be able to rescue her children from the filth in which they are forced to live.

    • GG

      Amen!

  • Bose

    Hey Austin, I’m tempted to ask you whether you’re aware of any bit of history behind calling adult men “boys”.

    Oh yeah, and of extra-judicial penalties paid by those “boys”.

  • kag1982

    I feel bad for this woman, but the man that she married should have never married her in the first place. Straight married men aren’t transformed into gay men overnight. Her husband was always gay, but was hiding it from her. Either she wasn’t worldly enough to discern it or she was actively deluding herself into thinking that her husband was straight. And I actually think that the gay man was being selfish by marrying Janna in the first place. He should have admitted that he was gay rather than spending ten years leading this poor naive woman on.

    As for the kids, the mom usually has more custody than the father so I’m assuming that Dad and his partner have every other weekend custody. I think that gay couples can do a good job raising children, but even if you believe that they cannot is exposure to Dad and his new husband every other weekend really going to scar the kids for life.

    • ForChristAlone

      Subjecting children to disorder and disease IS harmful. Homosexuality is a perversion of normal adult relationships. It is contrary to nature.

      • kag1982

        Gay people aren’t diseased.

        • GG

          Their ideology is. Contrary to nature and contrary to the ordained will of our Lord.

          • kag1982

            It is against the Catholic idea of marriage. That doesn’t mean that these people have any psychological disease or addiction.

            • GG

              It is against the natural law. Not only the ” marriage” lie, but the ideology itself is evil. As for the medical issue that can be parsed in many ways but suffice it to say it is pathology in that it is not consistent with health. It is not a variation of normal anymore than pedophilia is a variation of normal. It is not healthy.

              • kag1982

                It isn’t an ideology. People are just gay. They like people of the same sex. And the difference between that and pedophilia is that Bob and Steve aren’t harming anyone with their relationship as they are both over the age of consent. A pedophile obviously harms an innocent child who cannot consent.

                • GG

                  Gay is an ideology. It is a political belief that comes with a set of norms people buy into and push. People may be born with a predisposition towards same sex attraction, but that too is pathology.

                  Pathology is not defined but who you think is harmed or not. See, you make my point for me. You jump from biology to politics claiming no harm to children equals health.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Google “gay bowel syndrome.”

                  • Kyle

                    It is apparent that “gay bowel syndrome” is an essentialized category of difference that is neither gay-specific, confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome. The term “gay bowel syndrome” was withdrawn as “outdated” by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterologists in 2004, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control described the term as informal and no longer in use in 2005…

                • ForChristAlone

                  They are harming the moral climate of the universe with their perversity.

            • Fred

              Don’t go by gut feeling, educate yourself, and read. Then ask yourself do I really think it’s right to expose fecal bacteria from the anus the way that sodomites do? Satan loved nothing more than for you to turn away and rationalize if it feels good then do it.

              • kag1982

                I thought that we were going to be nicer in our language, but I guess the bishops are way ahead of some of the bigots in the pews.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Nothing wrong with Fred’s language. Grow up and stop playing the victims card.

                  • kag1982

                    I’m a straight woman, but I object to calling gay people such awful names. They are our brothers and sisters.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Define “awful names.” Examples? Quite frankly, I don’t see In Fred’s postings any name calling at all.

                    • kag1982

                      Sodomite.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Perhaps you have a better nicer word for anal penetration? Please tell us. I really am curious.

                    • GG

                      She, like others who reject Church teaching, want to deny reality so as to push normalization of evil.

                    • Kyle

                      How about anal penetration?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      I like “anal masterbators” better. It’s not hateful or mean. It’s true. The purpose is to masterbate into and using another man’s rectum.

                    • Kyle

                      No it’s not hateful or mean, just rather ridiculous, is vaginal sex also vaginal masturbation if a woman does not climax from the experience ?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      No, because the primary end of a man ejaculating into a woman’s vagina (ergo, the primary end of the male/female copulation) is procreation. A man, however, wearing a condom or a woman is using contraceptives during vaginal intercourse, have shut down that procreative end, that is masterbation, no different from anal masterbation.

                    • Kyle

                      Oh so that’s the primary end of a man ejaculating into a woman’s vagina, is it? How many times have you had sex? Compare that to how many times your wife has conceived, and then tell again what the “primary end” of sex is. I will certainly try to keep a straight face.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      When I have intercourse with my wife it is always open to procreation, with the possibility of conception. Quite frankly, we’ve conceived many times.

                      But what is the primary raison d’être of a man’s rectum? Is it not to evacuate bodily fecal matter? Yes. Is it’s primary purpose to have an erected penis rammed into and ejaculated in to? No.

                    • Kyle

                      I’ve had sex with my wife hundreds of times, do you know how many children we have? Two. Even if my wife was not using artificial contraceptives the number of children we would have would not be in the hundreds. To say that the primary purpose or end of vaginal intercourse is procreation is to be either completely naive, willfully ignorant or intentionally dishonest. It is secondary AT BEST, and you’re too smart not to be well aware of that fact.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Yo, I don’t time for your ignorance. You obviously have no edification on natural law, or what I mean by “primary end.”

                      Quite frankly I thought you were homosexual, didn’t this discussion start on the definition of sodomy, anal penetration?

                      I’ll make it simple for you: what is the natural purpose of a man’s rectum. To have a man’s erected penis inserted in and ejaculated in to, or to dispel/evacuate infectious, bacterial laden waste material from the body?

                    • Kyle

                      I know what the words primary and end mean, but if you want to play a semantics game in order to delude yourself, go right ahead, I will not stop you.

                      It started with you making a rather ridiculous assertion about anal sex which, all special pleading aside, can as easily be applied to the vast, vast majority of instances of vaginal sex…

                    • Objectivetruth

                      And you didn’t answer my questions. But you are engaging in the classic “gay” tactic of mocking and ridicule. You can’t engage in a rational, reasonable discussion, only mock and bully. Because you realize, you don’t have an argument.

                      You are a waste of time.

                    • Kyle

                      I answered you original contention quite thoroughly, I was however, not drawn in by your several attempts to lob red herrings and move goal post. Sorry about that, but I prefer to deal with one argument at a time.

                      Yes, I agree this has been a colossal waste of my time. You’re right and anyone who has the audacity to point out when you’re wrong is just in denial of how right you are.

                    • GG

                      It is not semantics, but understanding does require the ability to thing logically.

                    • Kyle

                      Enlighten me, how can one logical content that procreation is the primary purpose of sexual intercourse when for the vast, vast majority of instances of sexual intercourse procreation is and remains an after thought at best? This should be interesting!

                    • GG

                      Because having an action oriented toward procreation is not equal to likelihood of conception.

                    • Kyle

                      You didn’t actually answer the question that I asked… Nice try though!

                    • GG

                      I answered it perfectly. You are not educated in Catholic philosophy. Being oriented toward procreation does not mean each and every act must lead to conception. Do you honestly think the geniuses in the Church along with 2000 years of experience have not met such facile reasoning as yours?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      It is more correct to say, “Even if my wife WERE…” Use the subjunctive mood here.

                      The reason why you’re a homosexual apologist is because you, like they, engage in contraceptive, sterile sex.

                    • Kyle

                      My wife actually has a medical condition which requires her to utilize artificial hormonal contraceptives

                    • ForChristAlone

                      You lie

                    • Kyle

                      Endometriosis, she almost died carrying both our children to term, but thank you for your skepticism, it is duly noted.

                    • DN

                      Guy’s got some guts, calling you a liar when you relate the fact that your wife has an illness. Disgusts me. Not as much as I bet it disgusts you, but still. I stand with you on this.

                    • M

                      Me to. How presumptuous for someone who doesn’t know you to claim you are lying! How un-Christian!

                    • ForChristAlone

                      You are directing your comment to the wrong person. Direct your comment to the Creator God.

                    • Kyle

                      If the primary end of vaginal intercourse is procreation then why isn’t procreation the primary end of the vast majority of instances of vaginal intercourse?

                    • GG

                      You should study Catholic teaching and the come back here. Now, you are simply showing the usual gay ignorance.

                    • Kyle

                      I’m not gay and if this is the best”logic” that “Catholic teaching” has to offer, well I’m clearly not missing anything too compelling!

                    • GG

                      You do not have to be “gay” to display gay ignorance. You have drank the gay kool aid and apparently cannot reason well.

                    • GG

                      Why compare a marital act with a perversion of that act? They are unequal.

                    • Kyle

                      I am comparing one sexual act to another sexual act.

                    • GG

                      No you are not. You are comparing a normal sexual act with a perverted sexual act. They are manifestly unequal.

                    • Kyle

                      No I am comparing one sexual act with another sexual act. Normal and perverted are moral judgements which are highly subjective.

                    • GG

                      Only to the unprincipled and corrupt.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Anal penetrationists. . Ok.

                    • Kyle

                      Does that make you and I vaginal penetrationists?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      It is more grammatically correct to say, “Does that make you and ME vaginal penetrationists?”

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I certainly don’t know about you.

                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Actually, I’m in favor of any word that denigrates such a vile, disgusting and degrading act as sodomy.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Kyle

                      Awesome! So why don’t you make a commitment from this point forward to call homosexuals “sodomites” in any future articles you write or media appearances you have?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Because I draw a distinction between the person and the act. AWESOME!

                    • Kyle

                      But sodomite means someone who engages is sodomy, doesn’t it? The distinction is right there in the definition…

                    • Kyle

                      Interesting that you agree with the use of words like Sodomite do describe gay people.

                    • Bobby P

                      Reality check – straight people have been doing it for centuries, but your comments make it appear that only gay men own the title of “sodomite.”

                    • Austin Ruse

                      There was a eye opening article a few months ago by a gay man wrote was to NYC who was amused that all the gays in NYC are “bottoms”. What does that mean?
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Scriptural name.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Sodomite (definition):

                      1.
                      an inhabitant of Sodom.
                      2.
                      (lowercase) a person who engages in sodomy.

                    • Kyle

                      By all means continue to call homosexuals sodomites, personally I wish that the representatives of your cause would use words like sodomite more!

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Why? More hate from you?

                    • Kyle

                      Where have I demonstrated hate?

                    • Kyle

                      Let them be. They are not doing themselves any favors, all they are accomplishing is to turn well meaning people on the sidelines of this issue against them. Of course then they will pretend that they are the victims of persecution and hate when in actual fact it is their antagonism and persecution of others that people find repugnant.

                    • kag1982

                      They have been the victims for many years. I have gay friends who are estranged from their families.

                    • Kyle

                      As do I, it is unfortunate, but fortunately, becoming less and less common. These people who insist on denigrating and dehumanizing homosexuals are their own worst enemies and they are driving people away from them and their position in droves. I say let them!

                    • GG

                      No one is denigrating homosexual persons. What Catholics seek when confronted with propagandists who seek to invert the truth is that their voices are not drowned out by the provocateurs.

                    • Kyle

                      Sodomites, Mental defectives, Mentally ill, Pervert, Disgusting, Diseased, Dirty… All words which have been used ON THIS THREAD to describe gay people…

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Which names do you object to?

                    • Kyle

                      All of them a denigrating and dehumanizing.

                    • GG

                      And that may apply. If you insist on pushing a new ideology of evil on people then you better expect people to counter that propaganda.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      I know bank robbers who are estranged from their families

                    • Kyle

                      You know bank robbers?

                    • kag1982

                      You think that consensual sexual activity between two people is the same as bank robbery.

                    • GG

                      May be worse. Consensual does not make vice into virtue.

                    • GG

                      Straight is a political term like Gay. Catholics should speak like and not like pagans.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      CG is correct. You are not a “straight woman”. You are a child of God. No more. No less. Same as those who think they’re “gay”.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Why are you defending sodomy?

                    • kag1982

                      The Catholic Church can create any rules about sex it wishes. (I frankly don’t care what consensual sexual activity two adults do in their own bedroom.) But I think that Catholics would do well to remember that gay people are people as well.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      “I frankly don’t care what consensual sexual activity two adults do in their own bedroom.)” Hence your problem.

                      No such thin as “gay people” but Catholicism promotes love of all persons.

                • GG

                  Traitors to the faith are nothing new.

                  • kag1982

                    The Pope and the Catholic bishops are all traitors to the faith. If you believe that, then I suggest joining the SSPX.

                    • GG

                      You are confused. That some liberal prelates discussed something at a Synod is not a moral teaching nor is it binding. Learn your faith.

                      You dissenting liberals should join the Unitarians as relativism seems to be your choice.

                    • kag1982

                      The way we talk about teachings is different from the teachings themselves.

                    • GG

                      Right, so one can actually deny the teaching by burying it in talk that is confusing, effete, and only accents half the truth.

          • Objectivetruth

            Sodomy is against nature. It’s an insult and affront to the intent and ends of the sexual act. It goes against God’s will for the body that He created.

          • DN

            *Your* lord. Not mine.

            • Fred

              Yours too believe it or not, and someday you will meet him. He knows our capacity for sin and calls us all to him. Someday you will understand, hopefully while you are still in this world.

              • DN

                My beliefs have every bit as much validity as yours, friend.

                • Fred

                  It is not my belief, Christ came into the world to show you the way, the truth and the life. He was rejected by the non believers in his day, and stiff necked people today too.

                  • DN

                    ok

                • GG

                  No, they do not.

                  • DN

                    k.

            • GG

              Ours.

            • ForChristAlone

              no, He IS your Lord. You don’t yet acknowledge him. But the day will come when you will.

              • DN

                k.

        • Fred

          Disease, no, possessed maybe. The act of Sodomy is a sin, including between man and woman. So is adultery and pornography. Lots of behavior is rationalized “as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else” (but it does). Lead them not into temptation and deliver them from evil.

        • Fred

          It might do you good to read Skousen’s book from 1958 to open your eyes to the forces at work here. It’s not made up, it’s in their own manifesto. Their plan to destroy western civilization is to pervert beliefs that what is good is evil, and evil good by taking over cultural institutions and government. Hopefully they won’t have the last laugh, but I know the prince of this world is grinning ear to ear. Does he have his tentacles around you too?

          • kag1982

            Is this with the Jews and the Freemasons and the NWO? Oh and let me guess the gays from their secret den of fabulousness in San Francisco hatched out a plot with the Rotary Club and the Lions to totally destroy the Church through Vatican II.

        • ForChristAlone

          yes they are

    • Austin Ruse

      There’s no real evidence that anyone was “always” SSA. Evidence, even from pro homosexual scholars, showS homosexuality is remarkably elastic. it changes quite a bit, more in lesbians, but also for men who suffer from it.

      The great insight of the woman is that sexual desire ebbs and flows. What counts is fidelity to promises and vows. The husband showed himself to be a remarkably dishonorable man.

      • kag1982

        He should have never married her in the beginning because he was gay. I agree with that. And even the Catechism suggests that people have deep-seated tendencies and that they cannot change. Conversion therapy is harmful which is why more states are outlawing it.

        • GG

          Thanks for the propaganda commercial.

        • Austin Ruse

          Deep seated tendencies are not the sane as “always being gay” and the church most assuredly does not teach that people cannot stop or otherwise resist sinful impulses. Please, learn the church’s teaching.

          • kag1982

            The Church teaches that they are called to be celibate. They cannot marry within the Church and are called to not have sex with people of the same sex. This isn’t different from what single heterosexual people or divorcees without an annulment are called to do.
            That is different from suggesting that the gay person can switch teams or that it is positive for them to marry people of the opposite sex and remain in the closet. It is better to acknowledge who you are even it means being single than being something that you aren’t.

            • GG

              No one is “gay” unless they choose to identify by that political label. Those with a disorder, any disorder, are called to deal with it in a licit way. That means different things for different people.

              I would be very careful not to confuse popular propaganda with authentic science. If you are that credulous I suggest you also buy into therapeutic abortion, contracepted sex, transgender ideology, and much more all under the banner of “science”.

              • Kyle

                Playing games with semantics does not serve to prove your point.

                • GG

                  It is not semantics at all. Words have meanings. You promote propaganda.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Is propaganda the equivalent of lies?

                    • GG

                      Lies used in a political way to achieve an evil end.

            • Austin Ruse

              The church teaches much more than that. Disordered, for instance.

              • kag1982

                Intrinsically disordered in a natural law word; it doesn’t mean that they are somehow damaged or diseased. The Spiritual Friendship movement and writers like Eve Tushnet certainly don’t consider themselves diseased or damaged; they just believe that God called them as gay people to a different vocation.

                • Austin Ruse

                  The church teaches the inclination is intrinsically disordered. Brave psychologists like rick Fitzgibbons still hold that it is a psychological disorder. These people, including the New Homophiles, are not “gay.” The church rejects such dangerous labeling. They are children of God.

            • ForChristAlone

              Someone with SSA is fully free to marry a woman in the Church.. Sexual objects are malleable and therefore changeable (in our parlance – redeemable). The man, however, must be able to perform that act that is reserved ONLY between one man and one woman.

              • kag1982

                Yes, but most of these marriages are failures because the gay man or woman cannot give his or her spouse the attraction and affection he or she deserves. A priest would likely counsel against a gay man or woman against marriage during the preparation interviews. Hiding the fact that you have a SSA from your spouse is also considered fraud and would be grounds for annulment in the Church. I’m not sure if Janna is Catholic, but if she is, she would have grounds for an annulment.

                • ForChristAlone

                  You’re making a basic error in referring to a “gay man.” No such entity exists. I referred to men with SSA.

                  I would guess that all married couples go into marriage not fully understanding themselves as God knows them nor fully disclosing everything in their past. It come down to purposive deception; that’s different

                  But I can see that, if your ARE Catholic, you come from the protestant wing with your pushing the annulment line.

                  • kag1982

                    So I guess that you think that the current annulment tribunals are incorrect when they say that lying about one’s sexual orientation is grounds for an annulment.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Quote me where that is to be found in current Canon Law

      • Kyle

        There is actually quite a lot of evidence which would suggest that for the vast majority homosexuals their homosexual feelings are immutable [1][2][3][4].

        According to the findings of the largest longitudinal studies done into sexual orientation change efforts and “ex-gay” identification, only around 7-10% of “ex-gays” remain so over time and the majority of those who undergo “change efforts” report being harmed by the experience.

        [1] Flentje, A., Heck, N. C., & Cochran, B. N. – Sexual reorientation therapy interventions: Perspectives of ex-ex-gay individuals. – 2013 [2] Flentje, A., Heck, N. C., & Cochran, B. N. – Experiences of ex-ex-gay individuals in sexual reorientation therapy: Reasons for seeking treatment, perceived helpfulness and harmfulness of treatment, post-treatment identification. -2013 [3] Dehlin, J.P., Galliher, R.V., Bradshaw, W.S., Hyde, D.C., & Crowell K.A. – Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Among Current or Former LDS Church Members. -2014 [4]Bradshaw, K., Dehlin, J.P., Crowell, K.A., Galliher, R.V, & Bradshaw, W.S.- Sexual Orientation Change Efforts through Psychotherapy for LGBQ Individuals Affiliated With the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. -2014

        • Bobby P

          You’re trying to explain science/psychology to those that are neither trained in science, psychology or human sexuality.

          • ForChristAlone

            It’s has nothing to do with science. Homosexuality has now become a religion – albeit Satanic – but a religion nonetheless.

          • GG

            Quite wrong.

          • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

            This is the most hilariously insane comment on the site. Your “sexuality experts” are so “well-trained” in human sexuality that they cannot understand the basic functioning of male and female plumbing. This wins the “Purple Penguin Award” (so-named for the Lincoln Nebraska school system that has banned the use of words like “boy” and “girl.”)

            • Kyle

              Did you just conflate gender with human sexuality?

              • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

                No, I just “conflated” nuttiness with insanity.

                • Kyle

                  Sure thing…

                • GG

                  Alice in Wonderland is not just fiction.

              • GG

                Oh please save the propaganda

                • Kyle

                  What propaganda, human sexuality and gender are demonstrably different things… The very existence of homosexuals and bisexuals proves this.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    Human sexuality has to do with masculinity and femininity. It has nothing to do with same sex attraction.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    You’re definitely gay. Why do you need to lie about the fact?

                    You’re doing the classic “gay” play book of chasing you down the rabbit hole with a lot of tangental jamming. Never really answering a question. Just a whole lot of nothing. Classic move. Well played, Kyle. We’ll played…..

                    • Kyle

                      I’m definitely not gay, I’m not sure why you need to believe that I am but if it makes you feel more comfortable, you’re certainly free to…

                    • Objectivetruth

                      You are good…..

                      I stand in awe. There have been many deceptive homosexuals on this site, but yours is definitely an “A” game. Like a gay stealth fighter, you’ve flown right through everyone’s gaydar.

                      Please…..keep posting……I’ll sit back and enjoy a master at work.

                    • Kyle

                      Does holding to unfounded conspiracy theories about people you cannot possibly know make you feel better about the validity of you own cause?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Shhhhhh……

                      It’s OK, Kyle…..it’s OK….

                      I’m totally serious, Kyle….I see what you’re doing. And I’m fine with it. Even though I don’t agree with your gay agenda, your tactics are fascinating and admirable. Like a master artiste during the Renaissance in Florence, watching you work is fascinating. You’re like a KGB agent living amongst American suburbia for decades, your neighbors only believing you are an insurance salesman.

                      And I really don’t care, but it’s puzzling why you’re determined to deny that you are gay.

                      Because a married heterosexual man would not be so hell bent determined on pushing a pro gay agenda. Such a man would possibly take the almost neutral “let gays be gays” position. But your fighting too hard.

                      Once again, I don’t care.

                    • Kyle

                      I don’t suppose anything I could say could change your opinions fictitious as thy may be so enjoy your delusion I guess…

                    • Kyle

                      I had a homosexual brother thought, in case that changes any of your a priori conclusions…

                    • ForChristAlone

                      yeah you are gay

                  • GG

                    It proves mental illness occurs.

                    • Kyle

                      It was proved half a century ago that homosexuality wasn’t a mental illness by Dr. Hooker and her colleagues, unless you have some way to distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals with similar mental heath backgrounds that hasn’t changed…

                    • GG

                      Ah yes the chief gay propagandist. Her work has been debunked for years but the professional gay lobbiests still cite her.

                      No, same sex attraction is a defect. It is not a variation of normal. It is abnormal. It is a form of pathology.

                    • Kyle

                      Debunked by whom? In which journals? And when?

        • Austin Ruse

          Actually, none of these studies show SSA is inborn or immutable.

          • Kyle

            I never said anything about inborn and the results of the above cited studies do certainly suggest that for the vast majority it is immutable.

            The subjects were self-selected and highly motivated to the cause of changing… We’re not talking about average homosexuals here who may have varying low levels of commitment, we are talking about people with optimum support structures which ought to be conducive to change and who have often spent years or decades perusing that goal and yet, even given all that, most are still unable.

            • Austin Ruse

              SSA is either immutable or it’s not. The scores of happily married ex-gays demonstrates SSA is not immutable.
              Sent from my iPad

              • Kyle

                I am glad to see that you believe that you have some kind of infallible knowledge that no one else is privy too but unfortunately for you the available evidence suggests that while homosexuality (and sexuality in general) is fluid in a very small minority, for the vast majority it just is not and never will be.

                That is to say, based on the evidence, for most homosexuals (and even most homosexuals who are highly motivated to change), their homosexuality is simply immutable.

                The existence of some who can change in no way proves that all can.

                • Austin Ruse

                  A study from the journal of human sexuality found that 87% of adolescents who self identified as gay no longer did by their mid-twenties. The authors were so shocked that they concluded the adolescents had to have just been joking. The thought that ssa is immutable is simply propaganda from the sexual anarchists. Exgays say there’s more of them than the puny number of gays.

                  • Kyle

                    Can I have a citation for that study please? And has the study been repeated? Perhaps they were joking or perhaps adolescents are more prone to confusion about their sexuality which self resolves over time or perhaps in adolescents, sexuality is more fluid than in adulthood but settles over time, none of these outcomes necessarily disproves that my prior contention.

                    Again, the available research suggest that for most homosexuals, their homosexuality is immutable and sexual orientation change efforts are ineffective.

                    I don’t understand the dishonesty surrounding this particular issue… Homosexual activists will assert that no homosexual can really change while christian fundamentalists will assert that every homosexual can really change, but both assertions are clearly in contraction with the research, which suggests that some can change but most cannot.

                    Also, don’t you think that if there were far more ex-gays than gays that that fact would be patently obvious?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Give me your real name and I’ll find the citation. BTW. The authors are pro gay. BTWW. also. I don’t know a single Christian who says all SSA can change. BTWWW. you obviously do t know all the research.

                      Read dr Paul mcHugh’s amicus brief in Prop 8 ? Who he? Only the longtime head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins. He cites chapter and verse from the available research on why it’s NOT immutable.

                    • Kyle

                      My full name is Kyle Allen, but I’m not sure why that should matter…

                      It doesn’t matter if the authors are pro or anti-gay their methodology is sound, as was the methodology of Jones and Yarhouse when in their study into Sexual Orientation Change Efforts which found the same results despite their bias towards Change Efforts which was and is well known. As Jones stated of their findings “In short, the results do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some”

                      “also. I don’t know a single Christian who says all SSA can change.”

                      I direct you to your own comment above;

                      “SSA is either immutable or it’s not. The scores of happily married ex-gays demonstrates SSA is not immutable.”

                      I’m not sure how Dr. McHuch Could make such a claim now, considering the studies done since prop 8 in 2008, Jones and Yarhouse (2011) included…

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Golly, how could one of the most accomplished and respected psychiatrists in the USmake such a claim?
                      Start here:
                      http://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/McHugh.pdf

                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Kyle

                      I don’t know, but he’s certainly not making the claim based on the most resent evidence that’s for sure…

                    • Austin Ruse

                      He has fifty years of hands on treatment of SSA. yes, he knows nothing! Absolutely nothing! He cites leading figures in the field. They know nothing!
                      Read the brief if you dare. Course, you won’t or if you do you won’t believe a word cuz you’ve got other research! Right. Ignore the fact of thousands of exgays. Ignore the real life experience of respected psychiatrists (btw, did you know the guy who drafted the new regs in the diagnostic manual says he and his colleagues have treated thousands of SSA successfully). Yes, ignore all that! Ideologue.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Kyle

                      The studies I cited are of thousands of individuals who were highly motivated to change, some spending years or decades in the pursuit of that goal, of course you’re going to ignore that right? Ignore real science in favor of the anecdotal evidence one doctor… Do you mean Nick Cummings, who agrees that the vast majority of his patients were not able to change their sexual orientation?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Oh yea…..you’re definitely gay!

                      You’re pushing too hard, you know waaaaay too much pro gay propaganda.

                    • Kyle

                      Pro-gay propaganda? Is that what you call the available evidence as to the immutable nature of their sexual orientation? Well I guess that is a very good thing for homosexuals everywhere…

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Kyle, I just have one request. If you can take this back to your gay agenda leadership, I’d greatly appreciate it:

                      Please, I beg of you and all that’s holy, can your gay mafia please stay away from the children.

                      I am a Catholic father of (many) young children. We are trying to our best to raise our kids good, Catholic kids. But it seems you and your mafia are trying your best to scandalize the children in this country. The gay agenda has slowly permeated Disney. What before was wholesome is now with subtle and not so subtle gay themes. My sons love football, and they have to watch two gay men (Michael Sam) kissing on ESPN during the NFL draft. Kids now in public schools have to be called “purple penguins” because of your false and warped ideology.

                      And on and on…….

                      So please, get the message to your gay leadership and members to stop trying to

                    • Objectivetruth

                      (CONT) destroy my children’s and other children’s souls.

                      So please……..stay away from the children. Christ told us to bring the children to Him, not to your warped, perverted gay ideology.

                      Thank you.

                    • Kyle

                      Why don’t you just tell you kids that if they turn out to be homosexual that you will disown them?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Please…..stay away from perverting the children.

                    • Kyle

                      I will teach my children to respect everyone no matter their lifestyle or orientation, deal with it…

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Satanic.

                    • Kyle

                      Yes, teaching my children to respect others despite their differences (including you and yours) is really satanic isn’t it…

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Satanic

                    • Kyle

                      Well if homosexuality is a choice, the threat of disowning will certainly incentivize your children against accepting themselves as homosexual if they are, will it not?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Nick Cummings who said he and his team successfully treated thousands. Ys a

                    • Kyle

                      Perhaps you should check that again. He said that he and his team had treated tens of homosexuals and hundreds, who wished to change their sexual orientation, again his anecdotal accounts are not at odds with the scientific evidence…. Why do you insist on being so dishonest about the subject of sexual orientation change? It really baffles me…

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Homosexuality is a psychological disturbance that is also a deeply ingrained bad habit. These can be overcome but only by the highly motivated and through longtime hard work. But it is worth it because the alternative is so bleak. I am told 20% can make the permanent change.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Of course the race of the sacraments is essential. That why our friends here who are homosexual need Jesus Christ.

                    • Kyle

                      Based on the evidence, the actual figures of highly motivated homosexuals who appear to be able to change their homosexuality is between 7 and 10%. For the rest it appears that their homosexuality is very much immutable.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Oh, you mean your study of 38 men who went through religious change therapy? A huh. According to psychiatrists who do this work, roughly 20% can change their SSA.

                    • Kyle

                      I cited 4 studies and also mentioned the Jones and Yarhouse study which found similar results… Have these psychiatrists published studies to back up their claims or are you just attempting to use anecdotal evidence to refute empirical evidence?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      There are similar figures for alcoholism another compulsive disorder. About 3-5% of the population is alcoholic and of those a small number achieve reasonable balance in their lives w/o alcohol. My guess is that it’s about the same for the disorder of homosexuality which too is a compulsive disorder

                    • Kyle

                      Exactly! And yet we acknowledged that alcoholics will always suffer from alcoholism no matter what they do or how much they change their behaviors, that is why they always need to stay away from alcohol… Why not the same acknowledgement for homosexuals? Most will always be homosexual, no matter what they try to do to change.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      this is all too categorical and poorly mimics life’s experiences. it’s not a question of “homosexual” or “heterosexual” One is masculine or feminine. One does the best one can to live according to the natural law which is the norm. Any deviance can be laid at the foot of original sin.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Cling tightly to the “studies” that confirm your ideology

                    • Kyle

                      Yes, I believe I will cling tightly to the actual evidence, unlike you… I don’t quite understand why you’re so emotionally invested in this issue Mr. Ruse or why do you continue to be dishonest about the fluidity of sexuality… Just because you don’t like the results of a study doesn’t meant that the study was methodologically flawed or that the results themselves were wrong. Some homosexuals can change most cannot, that is what the research shows, even studies published by researchers very sympathetic to the idea of sexual orientation change like Jones and Yarhouse…

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Hilarious! An old debaters trick to impute anger or emotion to an interlocutor.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Kyle

                      I said nothing about anger Mr. Ruse, so it’s interesting that you would bring it up… You are relying on anecdotal evidence as a means to to refute empirical evidence, people don’t usually do this unless they are quite emotionally invested in their end of the debate.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Imputing emotion to an interlocutor is a rather juvenile way to try for an upper hand in debate. Your youth and inexperience are showing.

                    • Kyle

                      Ah, I see that you’re done arguing the merits now and have decided to sink to ad hominems attacks. I believe that we are done here.

                      The evidence is just not on your side Mr. Ruse, no matter how emotionally or otherwise adhered you may be to your a priori conclusions.

                      Good day.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Yes, you are finished.

                      Sent from my iPad

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Most cannot change because most have a defect of will as they are under a compulsion to act out their disorder. The only force that can end their tortured life is a Higher Power who can restore them to sanity.

                    • Kyle

                      This is based on what evidence exactly? Most homosexuals studied for SOCE research are highly committed to achieving their goal, some spend years or decades trying, they live lifestyles with support structures which ought to be conducive to change and almost all report being celibate or sexually faithful to opposite sex spouces. These are not people with a defect of will, these are highly motivated individuals… And despite this most will always be homosexual.

                    • Daniel

                      I appreciate your input here. Even if your interlocutors have no intention of listening to anything you say, it is good to get the facts out. Two points:

                      – I was intrigued by Dr. Cummings claims. None pertain to any “conversions” happening today, but rather ones that purportedly occurred in the 1950s and 1960s when Cummings worked at Kaiser. I asked Dr. Cummings’ colleague, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, if he would follow up with Cummings to see what evidence there was regarding these cases. After all, we can’t just take some guy’s word about outcomes from decades ago. We need some evidence. Where are the case files? Who were the patients? Might there be follow-up with them? Confidentiality could be protected, but surely Cummings would want the evidence to be studied. The answer? All the records and case files were lost in a flood. There’s no evidence. Not even a single scrap of paper. For some reason, Cummings can’t recall even a single patient and none has ever been contacted for a follow-up, as far as I know. Darnit! I hate when the dog eats my homework!

                      – Regarding Jones and Yarhouse, despite the dismal results, I dispute that their methodology is sound. First, they discount all drop outs from the results. Second, the remaining participants are all active in ongoing “change” efforts – even after 7 years. Accordingly, they have every incentive to report positive results, so as to justify their extensive investment of time and energy, and to show loyalty to their respective change organizations. Third, you can create a false sense of change simply by subjecting yourself to “sessions’ and “group therapy” every week, but that sense evaporates once the talk “therapy” ends. If you were to attend 2-hour sessions, two or three times a week in which you discussed how your love of chocolate ice cream is a manifestation of your desire to kill your parents, and if you did homework exercises to enforce that belief, and if your family and your church all were counting on you to succeed in internalizing this belief, then I assure you that your feelings about chocolate ice cream will seem different during the process. But let this activity cease and fast forward a couple of years, and chocolate ice cream has gone back to being a dessert once again. Jones and Yarhouse don’t want to look at what happens afterwards, and for good reason. Despite all these built-in biases and a cherry picked participant pool and despite relying on self-reporting, they couldn’t identify one person who became heterosexual. Maybe such a guy exists, but he got lost in the same flood that destroyed Dr. Cummings’ records.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Wow. This is excellent.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Gold standard

                  • Bobby Trosclair

                    I think the study that Austin is referencing is Savin-Williams, R.C. and Ream, G.L. (2007) Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components During Adolescence and Young Adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior 36, 385-394). It used a very large study sample (far larger than Kinsey’s, for example) to show that there is a high rate of movement from self-image as gay or bisexual to heterosexual within a 1-year period (age 16 to 17, in the longitudinal study) in adolescents, which continues over the next 5 years, so an LGBT orientation in the young is by no means a fixed self-identification.

                    The movement from homosexuality or bisexuality at age 16 to self-identification as heterosexual by age 17 is 25 times higher than movement from the opposite extreme (heterosexual to a homosexual or bisexual self-identification). This research could indicate that many boys (and girls) who are unsure about their orientation do, in fact, “grow out of it,” and that a youth program model that encourages moral rectitude without harassment or bullying could cause a greater rate of change in orientation in those with a desire to be heterosexual, or simply out of a realization that most kids who may join while identifying as “gay” are statistically unlikely to remain that way.
                    Surprisingly (or maybe not), the pull towards heterosexuality remains quite strong (which an exclusively evolutionary as well as a religious model of human origin would predict), and only a small proportion of those who identify exclusively as same-sex attracted at age 16 continue to do so at age 17 (without any intervention models). A very small percentage of those who identify as heterosexual move to homosexual. A large proportion (the majority) of those who identify as bisexual at 16 move largely to exclusively heterosexual, with a small group retaining a bisexual identity and a much smaller group moving to exclusively homosexual.

                    The sexual orientation self-identification rates from the cohort from age 17 to 25 show heterosexuals continue to largely remain heterosexuals. Of those who continued to identify as bisexuals by age 17, a majority moved to heterosexuality but a larger proportion continued as bisexual than during the 1-year 16 to 17 age period. 75% of those with a full same sex attraction at 17 had moved on to heterosexuality by age 25. Females show the greatest drop from full homosexuality at 17 – very few reported full same sex attraction by age 25, although women with an initial SSA are the only group that ended as a high proportion of bisexuality (than SSA or heterosexuality) at the end of the study.

                    Interesting study.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Thanks. It’s one office computer and im in Rome but that’s the one.

                      Most of the highly respected leftwing researchers cited by mchugh favor our view.

                    • Kyle

                      Thank you for citing it! I will have to check it out…

                    • StraightGrandmother

                      Thanks for identifying the study. When I have a chance later I’ll go read it again. I know I have read it before But I believe the description you are providing is not correct. I may be wrong, but I don’t think I am. When I have a chance I’ll go re-read it again.

                  • StraightGrandmother

                    Austin, I think I remember reading that study. By any chance do you have a link to it? If I remember right the people kind of flip flopped.
                    Teen – “I’m Gay”
                    Late Teen, early Twenties- “No wait, I’m not gay”
                    Mid Twenties, “Oh well, I guess I really am gay” (overwhelming majority)
                    The deception is citing the statistic in the early 20’s. Reading the whole thing/study by mid twenties they were back to being gay again. I’m pretty sure this is the same study and that I am remembering it right, if you can provide a link I’ll go look it up.

        • Austin Ruse

          Ok. Took the bait. The first study was of a whopping 38 individual who experienced a total of 115 interventions of a largely religious nature. Some study! I suspect that McHugh, Nicolosi, Fitzgibbons, , Cummings and all the rest are not using religious interventions. You call this the latest research!
          Phony studies meant to smear real psychology.

          The problem of gay men is a lack of a masculine identity hence an effort to make it up through homosexual activity. One psychologist I know asked a patient when was the last time he felt las culling. The guy said “never”. That is the problem. Religion can help but working through masculine issues is the key.
          Sent from my iPad

          • ForChristAlone

            True. As a psychologist, all the homosexuals I have seen suffer from narcissism and seek to find their masculinity in another – not as a separate object of love – but as a missing part of themselves. That ]’s why homosexual “marriage” is a sham.

            • Objectivetruth

              A little bit of a tangent………

              I’ve noticed a lot of “gay” couples look alike. They share much of the same physical characteristics: hair, height, complexion, body type. Why is that? Is there an attraction to someone of the same physical characteristics? Maybe I’m off, but I see it more often than not.

              • ForChristAlone

                Interesting observation. My guess is that, rather than the complementary nature of True Marriage, homosexual “marriage” is unilateral in that it is looking to missing parts of oneself.

          • GG

            Much of science has been as corrupted as politics. The problem is the gay forces know the masses are credulous. People believe most anything some scientist asserts along with words like peer review or whatever some political group, like the APA, puts out. It is mostly propaganda. We need real scientists and real physicians and psychologists to step up and explain what health and disease authentically are and not get bogged down in statistics that can be pushed in any direction and call it “truth”.

          • Daniel P

            Austin, I’m not sure why the question of changing sexual orientation matters here. It’s not possible (so far as I know) to cure manic/depressive disorder, but it is nevertheless a disorder. The key point is that homosexual orientation is (1) a disorder — whether moral, or moral and psychological — and (2) not a justification for actions.

            If a man commits to a woman for a lifetime, he is bound by that commitment, whether or not he is attracted to her. SHE may morally break off the commitment if she was deceived about his sexual affections; he cannot.

            Or at least, that’s what would happen in a genuine marriage. I don’t know what people are “promising” nowadays, but it often doesn’t even resemble actual marriage.

            • Austin Ruse

              Well put and the essential question. Keep vows and honor or toss them away.
              Sent from my iPad

            • Objectivetruth

              True marriage between a man and a woman mimics and honors the Holy Trinity. “Gay” marriage and sodomy is satan’s way of attacking and mocking the Holy Trinity.

          • Kyle

            “The problem of gay men is a lack of a masculine identity hence an effort to make it up through homosexual activity”, Ah reparative drive theory, an interesting yet completely unprovable hypothesis based largely in anecdotal evidence and not empirical research.

            Also Dr. Cummings would certainly disagree said hypothesis, his forte is in cognitive behavioral theory…

            • ForChristAlone

              You might consider a course of Reparative Therapy for yourself; it is very effective.

              • Kyle

                I am not a homosexual and it is not very effective at all.

                • ForChristAlone

                  How can you be certain?

                  • Kyle

                    The evidence suggests that it is not. When Jones and Yarhouse were recruiting for their 2011 longitudinal study into Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE), they turned to prominent therapist/psychiatrist advocates of reparative drive theory to help them populate their sample with homosexuals who were highly motivated and in the best position to change . Originally they had hoped for a sample size of 300 change orientated homosexuals but they were only able to recruit 93. Of those 93 only around 14% experienced a meaningful shift from homosexual to heterosexual by the end of the study period. Jones said of their findings;

                    “In short, the results do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some”

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Irrelevant

          • StraightGrandmother

            Did any of those people you mention above publish any independently peer reviewed research that gays can, through therapy, go from gay to straight, published in a non partisan academic Journal? Any of them?

            • Austin Ruse

              I will not engage with you’ve. I’ve seen your despicable handy work, stalking innocent people. Scat.
              Sent from my iPad

            • ForChristAlone

              Satanic

  • Austin Ruse

    On Twitter, Scott Rose has written to Ryan Anderson, “The only good anti-gay bigot is a dead anti-gay bigot”. This is an ally of Jeremy Hooper’s and the guy David Hart says sometimes goes a bit to far. I hope Ryan has alerted the police to this specific death threat. Hooper has not condemned him by name. Why not, Jeremy?

    • Scott W.

      I’m assuming by “anti-gay bigot”, he means anyone who thinks homosexual acts are wrong. Christians are always told that persecution of Christians is right-wing paranoia. Then we see comments like this. I’ve been told that there will be no persecution, but if persecution happens, we deserved it. It’s talking out of both sides of the mouth. I’ve seen people get enthusiastic in the anticipation of punishments that will be meted out to people who refuse to bow to the homosexual agenda. And we’ve heard one tell us point-blank that the goal of same-sex marriage is to destroy marriage.

      At this point, someone usually squawks that these people don’t speak for everyone else. But at best we hear from everyone else is a vague comment about “sometimes going too far”, or at worst, silence.

      • Objectivetruth

        “I’ve seen people get enthusiastic in the anticipation of punishments that will be meted out to people who refuse to bow to the homosexual agenda. And we’ve heard one tell us point-blank that the goal of same-sex marriage is to destroy marriage.”

        We are Catholic. We stand tall for Christ. Let us prepare for martyrdom from those that have chosen satan’s side of the battlefield. History will show that one of the main downfalls of our culture was the acceptance of the “gay” lifestyle. Catholics that stand up against such demonic activity will also be viewed by history. Future generations will call them SAINTS!

  • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

    Out of curiosity, I checked out this “goodasyou” website referenced by the homophiles who swarm here in outrage whenever Christians enunciate the Christian view of sodomitic activity. As expected, there is not a single Christian posting (or “homophobic” remark, as they call it). Whereas the homosexuals cannot suffer life without our approval, or refrain from spewing their animosity about all things Christian, they get no similar reaction on their sites. They are ignored, and that too apparently drives them crazy.

    • Daniel P

      I tried to post on another blog, simply to say that this woman’s husband seriously wronged her, and my posts are (for the most part) “awaiting moderation”. I expect that some of these sites simply expunge anything that smacks of disagreement. Conformity is a very big thing for them.

    • Objectivetruth

      “Gay” = narcissism.

  • ForChristAlone

    We should no longer refer to the homo”sex”ualists who flood our site with names like “trolls.” Rather, we should just say they are “cruising” here.

  • Susan Fox

    Good Job, Austin Ruse! I retweeted Janna Darnelle’s heart breaking post, and I was immediately under attack by men who appeared to self-identify by their homosexuality. They excoriated Janna, and harassed me to the point where I had to mute them! I never saw such concerted online effort in my whole life. And it’s those poor children of hers who will suffer the most. May God forgive their father, and save his children. Really he has aborted his family. Janna is the only parent left. I will pray for her children. Susan Fox, http://www.christsfaithfulwitness.com

    • GG

      It is a demonic attack. These forces will use anything to further their agenda including faux and corrupt science, propaganda, and all manner of lies. As Pope JPII said it is a new ideology of evil.

      • Objectivetruth

        Satan exists. The devil is real. God’s children with the inclination towards homosexuality that live out the “gay” lifestyle have fallen for the devil’s lies, fallen in to his trap. It’s that simple. Sodomy is satan’s way of mocking the holiness of the sexual act between a man and a woman.

        The “gay” discussion is not about psychology, genetics, feelings, equal rights. It’s spiritual warfare. The discussion starts there. Whenever anyone is in a state of mortal sin, the devil is ever present, a puppeteer pulling the strings.

    • Objectivetruth

      “Disorder in society is the result of disorder in the family.”

      Saint Angela Merici

  • tom

    Let’s join Timothy, Weakling, Dolan and invite the LGBT? into the St. Patrick’s Parade and march into a self-imposed Hell.

  • Daniel P

    There is an issue, below, with the question of the use of the word “sodomite”.

    I don’t think it’s helpful (even in the comboxes) to call actively gay people “sodomites”. It’s technically incorrect, in some cases, but that’s not my real objection to it. The real point is that it’s defining people by their sin, which is exactly what so many people here tell gay people *not* to do.

    We do call certain people “murderers” or “rapists”, and I think that is *accurate*, so far as it goes. But it’s not evangelistic. It does not help the person to see themselves as ontologically separate from their sin. In close conversations between friends, such sharp language is sometimes called for. But I don’t think it’s helpful in other contexts. I wouldn’t call a man convicted of murder a “murderer” if I visited him in jail, nor would I call abortionists murderers if I was in a conversation with one. I would emphasize the action of abortion as murder, but not the person as a murderer. This is not a matter of the action being morally wrong, but rather a matter of it being (to my mind) unhelpful.

    None of my comments are meant to apply to the use of the word “sodomy”, which is the best name we have available at the moment for objectionably non-procreative sex. There’s a difference between “sodomy” and “sodomite”.

    • ForChristAlone

      Pleeeese!!! You’re going to great lengths to be an apologist for the sodomites. Don’t the Gospels refer to a woman brought to Jesus caught in the act of adultery? Such a person is an adulterer and the adjectival form would be adulterous. Same here in the case of the act of sodomy. I am sure that after the woman’s repentance and forgiveness by the Lord, no one in the Lord’s coterie persisted in referring to her as an adulterer. You’re engaed in too much of the touchy-feely cheap sentimentality post Vatican II garbage that far too many of us had to endure (and have reached the limit of our tolerance for).

    • Objectivetruth

      Saint Paul would disagree with you. From 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:

      “9* Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes* nor sodomites
      10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
      11That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

      • Daniel P

        Our opponents use language in order to wound, in order to bully, in order to scare. When we intentionally use unnecessary hurtful words, I think we fight fire with fire.

        I don’t think that’s what Jesus recommended.

        By the way, the word “arsenokoitai” in the Bible — translated “sodomites” –was not the type of word that any Greek person would take offense to. It would be like the phrase “men who have sex with men” today. I don’t think that point in itself proves my point, and I’m open to disagreement on this point. I hope you understand, though, that I am looking for the most effective method of evangelism to a large culture of unbelievers. I am not “going to great lengths to defend sodomites”, as ForChristAlone seems to think. I agree 100% that true evangelism causes people to abandon their sin entirely; I’m not a silly neo-“Catholic” trying to fill the pews with nominal Catholics.

        • ForChristAlone

          “I am looking for the most effective method of evangelism to a large culture of unbelievers.”

          The truth usually works best.

          • GG

            Exactly. Truth is like a sword in that it divides. We either choose good or choose evil. Papering over the diabolical is the anti Gospel.

          • Daniel P

            I think what you’re missing is that “sodomite” is a word like “b****”, to refer to a sexually promiscuous woman. It’s not the DENOTATION of the term that offends, but the CONNOTATION. And the connotation isn’t “sinner”. The connotation is: subhuman.

            I would never try to evangelize a promiscuous woman by calling her a b****. Would you?

            • GG

              Every encounter is not about evangelization. When a cop encounters a man with a knife he is not evangelizing. When a gay propagandist spews the anti gospel he may be met with verbal truth that he does not like but it is necessary for the situation.

              • Daniel P

                No, he is being met with a tool for bullying, little better than the word “fa****”.

                I know a number of people who have turned from the gay lifestyle, and the word “sodomite” was not instrumental in any of these cases.

                • Daniel P

                  Note: I agree that, in this case, the bullying is being used for a good purpose. But I don’t think that justifies the usage of the word, unless it is *necessary*. And I don’t see why it’s necessary or beneficial.

                  “Intrinsically disordered” IS necessary. A person cannot turn from sin without recognizing that it is disordered.

                • GG

                  No, that is a matter of prudence and context. You are fixated on this exaggerated concern for groups who spread an anti Gospel. As we see from the comments at Crisis the homosexual activists are not open to dialogue no matter which terms you like or not.

                  • Daniel P

                    Does this mean that we should refuse to be open to dialogue too? Did Jesus teach us to imitate our enemies?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      GG’s correct. The vast majority of “gays” that come to this site are not here for conversion, but to attack and mock the Catholic Church. You try to engage them on a Catholic doctrinal, Christ’s love level, and they either ignore you or mock you. Like Christ you can only invite them to learn of the Good News. If they don’t listen, you’ve tried, time to shake the dust off of your sandals and move on. Christ didn’t convert everyone, we certainly won’t.

                    • Daniel P

                      I agree. But other gay people — those who aren’t trolls, and aren’t even hostile to the Church — read what we write here.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      OK. But let’s make sure they get clear, defined Catholic teaching on the subject. I see a lot of back and forth commentary on this sight on whether a particular psych study is legit or not. Who cares. This is an orthodox Catholic site. Give them the cause for our joy, Christ. Give them Christ, Christ, and more Christ. That’s what we’re called to do.

                    • Daniel P

                      Amen to that!

                    • ForChristAlone

                      If they are earnest about their interest in the CC, they will continue their search. Let’s not treat everyone like some weak sister (apologies to the ladies here). Men find treating people like they will fall to pieces if you talk turkey to them rather alien.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Jesus knew when to knock the dust off his sandals and move on.

                    • GG

                      It means we exercise prudence and reason. We do not glibly insult nor do we foolishly pretend the enemy can be persuaded by bowing to their demands.

                    • bonaventure

                      Jesus call his enemies “hypocrites,” “dogs,” “snakes,” “white washed tombs,” “bones,” etc.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      If they have given themselves over to Satan, do you think it wise to linger among them? Would you attend a Black Mass in order to evangelize? As GG states, much of what they present here is demonic and, if this is the case, don’t you think they are here to impose the demonic on us? True, we don’t want to respond to demonic with the demonic but that is for OUR SAKES, not theirs.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    You’re absolutely right. In fact, I would characterize their contributions here as close-minded bigotry. They are certainly not here to hear more about what the Catholic Church teaches.

                    I remember some years ago when some leftist terrorists decided to fornicate inside St. Patrick’s cathedral. Cardinal O’Connor had to have the cathedral blessed after its defamation. I am certain that those fornicators were not there to pray. I am certain our cruisers are not here to be evangelized.

                    • GG

                      We must understand we are dealing with the demonic. The ideas asserted here are not even from the human spirit. The things stated are so inverted and perverse that those not shocked by them either have been desensitized to horror or are deceived beyond comprehension.

            • ForChristAlone

              b***** is not in my lexicon….you might enlighten me (seriously)

              • Daniel P

                A word for a female dog.

                • ForChristAlone

                  Thanks but I never associated that word for a promiscuous woman.

          • Objectivetruth

            Agreed. Hell is for eternity. If you truly love the “gay” neighbor, tell them directly that their sinful lifestyle will have them damned for all time. Repeat: damned for all time. Whatever verbiage wakes them up, do it. I’d rather try to save their soul, not worry about hurting their feelings.

            • Daniel P

              I’d rather befriend them, and THEN speak bluntly to them — and not in public, where they feel the pressure to “save face”.

              Again, we’re disagreeing about methods, not goals. So I’m probably gonna bow out of this conversation, since I think we all understand each other’s positions.

    • GG

      I cannot accept your position. Right now several secular sources are attacking Cardinal Burke for using the phrase intrinsically disordered. They even use profanity against him. They are unhinged which is typical of the Gay Lobby.

      No matter what language is used no matter what tone is used it does not matter. The issue is diabolic. That is why it is so appalling to see the left wingers in the Synod make the ploy about not using theologically correct words. It plays directly into the agenda of evil.

      Words ought to describe reality, yet the propagandists have stolen the language and used it to suppress dialogue and truth. They will control the debate and control how reality is viewed by using the tactics they use to stifle any authentic speech that describes evilness.

      We have an obligation not only to those lost in sin, but also to others especially children who are being indoctrinated by this misuse of language.

      • Daniel P

        I do not object to the term “intrinsically disordered”, when it (as in the CCC) refers to actions, not people.

        • GG

          Verbal engineering is not needed. You can argue about honest words, but that is not the issue. The issue is those who promote the anti Gospel refuse to be convinced not matter which words you want to use. Pray and fast.

    • bonaventure

      Guess who used the following offensive vocabulary:
      Hypocrites
      Dogs
      Snakes
      Dead bones
      White washed tombs

      • DavidFanning

        Bonaventure! Been a long time buddy! How’s life been treating you?

      • John200

        I want to vote this up ten times.

  • Franks Trate Writes

    An excellent article. She is aboslutely right about these “gay bullyboys” who use every possible method to attack those who won’t capitulate to thier extremist demands. They abuse innocent peple online and by e-mail. they vandalised the house of a friend of mine. Yes, they got Brendan Eich sacked and they are getting people sacked all over the Western world for being “homophobic” or “anti-gay”. this is tyranny. And the language they use reveals very deranged, disturbed minds.

  • Deker71

    The heterosexual marriage act spreads life. Sodomy spreads disease. The CDC reports “homosexual men have a 16,000% to
    32,700% increased likelihood of contracting HIV over a heterosexual man.
    ” These HIV positive homosexuals/bisexuals end up spreading the disease into the general population. Thanks to the legalization of gay marriage by our judges, that number will only increase.

  • You are officially a crazy person. Congrats.

    This woman expected her husband to continue living a lie for her. Coming out as gay didn’t mean he threw away his family, as he has shown, he is still obviously very a much a father to two beautiful children. I don’t know what you think “pain” looks like, but I don’t see it in the eyes of either of those children. I see a father living an honest life and making sure his children are included in that life. Perpetuating a lie and living a false life in the name of “tradition” and “vows” is not noble. This woman was asking her husband to pretend so she could continue a sham of a marriage. Instead of looking at the situation realizing a.) she could never give her husband what he needed in a relationship and b.) he could never give her what she needed in a relationship, she just wanted to pretend because it was easier for HER. Selfish.

    Ever think if this man grew up being accepted for who he was and knowing he could have a happy, healthy marriage with a man he never would have entered into a sham marriage with a woman to appease everyone else and pretend to be “normal” in the eyes of those who taught him being gay was wrong?

    This entire rant about Jeremy Hooper is laughable. Jeremy is arguably one of the most honest, decent and truthful bloggers out there. You clearly have no concept of who he is, make all these ridiculous accusations against him. You just sound like a petulant child.

    • Objectivetruth

      In your picture next to your name, Stef, you do realize that you are upside down on your bed? Did you take a fall? Are you OK? Did you break anything? Is it opposites day at the home?

      I hope you’re OK.

      • ForChristAlone

        It’s a metaphor for our visitors.

      • It’s so tragic that it’s stupidity like this that your side has resulted to in these conversations. It speaks volumes about your side’s mentality. Seriously.

        • GG

          You should look in the mirror. You advocate vice and perversion.

          • Yah. Or i took a picture. You know, tomato, tomahtoh…

            It’s really bizarre that a nice picture gets you so angry. You strike me as the type of person who rails against anyone who enjoys themselves or isn’t a wound up prude but then aggressively jacks off to BDSM. Very odd indeed.

            • Objectivetruth

              Have you ever heard the expression “purity of heart”, Stefanie? Let me know if you liked to discuss. A pure heart, leads to pure thoughts, to pure actions. A great peace. Many lesbians I know have developed this way of looking at life. One former lesbian friend told me that by developing a pure heart made her realize her lesbian lifestyle was, as she called it “fraudulent.”

              Would like to learn more? It could bring you great peace. From your posts, I believe that is what you are looking for.

            • GG

              Again, have your meds adjusted.

          • Oh, and by the way, I advocate reality. The reality is, gay people exist. They are good people with lives loves and happinesses that hurt no one and can impact the lives of many positively, as all of my gay friends do. Their relationships are not a threat to me or mine as a straight woman. You advocate fear of people different than you.

            I get you so desperately want to be better than somebody, ANYBODY, and you think you can claim to be better than gay people, but the sad truth is, you aren’t. You are a sad, sad little person who seeks to make other’s lives harder and more miserable because you yourself are unhappy with your own. You seek to diminish love and happiness of gay people probably because you don’t have your own.

            It reminds meo f that scene in Mississippi Burning where Gene Hackman is telling the story about his father and his neighbor. How his father kills his black neighbor’s mule out of jealousy then says “if you’re not better than a n*gger, who are you better than?”

            That’s your mentality. You just want to be better than gay people and think by throwing out these fear words like “perversion” you will be. The problem is, reality combats your fantasy. Scream it til the cows come home, that gays aren’t normal, are perverted, are sinful, blah blah blah. All one has to do is talk to an actual gay person to realize you’re just a sad person full of hate and self loathing and that you’re assessment of people you’ve never met is completely and utterly wrong. You can’t win when you’re fighting against reality. You can scream the sky is green as many times as you like. All one need do is look up to see you aren’t right.

            • Objectivetruth

              Stef!

              Boy….you certainly have a lot get off of your chest!

              You really like it here on our Catholic website, don’t you?!:) you certainly like to spend a lot of time here. I’m glad. We’re glad you’re here! Any questions on Jesus or His Catholic Church?

              You need to understand Stef we are commanded by our Lord to love you…..and we do!

              • I was raised Catholic for 16 years. I left when a priest molested a friend of mine and the church tried to scam money from my mother for my father’s funeral! But thanks! I had enough “Catholic love” for a whole lifetime.

                • Objectivetruth

                  But Stef, you’re on the road to possibly burning in hell for all eternity, is that what you want?

                  Good bye. Good luck! Know that you and all the gay posters here are loved by us. And that you will be included in one of my daily rosaries.

                • ForChristAlone

                  Satanic….

            • GG

              Get back on your meds.

            • ForChristAlone

              Satan speaks. Non serviam

            • John200

              Dear Stefanie,

              Again! We learn that homo”sex”ual activity does not hurt anyone. How stupid we were.

              But the victims of the effects of homo”sex”ual activity are strewn all over the place:
              1)the homo”sex”ual himself, done out of a good life by his own
              actions,
              2)the man he is destroying, ditto,
              3)others who would have benefited if the homo”sex”ual had been a
              decent person, and
              4)society as a whole, which pays for the costs created by
              homo”sex”ual activity.

              Mr. Ruse writes about a category 3) victim, a wife who was cheated out of a family life that mirrors the Holy Trinity. That is what marriage is supposed to do, but you, Stefanie, cannot stand to admit it. Mr. Ruse’s reward is a signature of the “non serviam” — the selfish, foot-stamping tantrum of a two year old.

              Sorry, Precious, you are not convincing anyone that you have reality in mind. The two year old is more convincing, and more sincere.

        • Objectivetruth

          Goodness, I’m confused….just trying to joke with ya, have a little fun!

          No harm….why so edgy?

          “Our side” though Stef prays for you! Are you interested in learning about Christ and the Church? You’ll find great peace here.

        • ForChristAlone

          Satan speaks yet again

    • Fred

      You should educate yourself about the forces at work that are trying to brainwash you Stefanie. No doubt you are a feeler, but try. It is well documented in their own words that those who wish to destroy western civilization have their goal to convince you that what is right is wrong, and what is wrong is right. Quite cunning and efficient they are. I’m being vague purposely, you do the research if you care. The false life is to live one of sin and accept it because it feels right, without repentance.

      • brainwash me? How about I grew up with my best friend Karl who at age 23 came out and now is in a happy, committed relationship with an equally wonderful man? How about I live in a world where gay people exist, have jobs, pay student loans, drink beer, go to dinner, rent apartments, have friends, have bbqs? How about I am not Christian and do not subscribe to being brainwash dingo believing bronze age stories over the reality of my daily life?

        Hilarious that you think you’re smarter than me, yet you subscribe to an idea of sin. Your Bible also preaches about the sanctity of rapist/rape victim marriage. Hope you don’t adhere to those teachings of your almighty bibles.

        The sad life is to live one run by men who pretend to be God rather than one run by reality. I feel sorry for you.

        • GG

          Bizarre and evil.

        • Fred

          Nobody here claims that people who deal with SSA can’t function in society or pretend to be happy, lots of people do. Given the statistics it would appear to be the case for people addicted to pornography too since they also live in society. I have had many acquaintances who deal with it too so I know personally their situations. I understand that many people go through life with no more of a compass than if it feels good then do it, you apparently at the moment too. Sodomy is an offense to God, whether you wish to accept or not. Someday I pray you will come to understand when you become wiser.

          • “deal with” same sex attractions? pretend to be happy? That’s like saying “no one here claims that people with green eyes can’t function in society or pretend to be happy”.

            My best friend does not pretend to be happy. Want to know when he was pretending? When he pretended to be straight and tried endlessly to have relationships with women to which he was not attracted to. That was the pretend part. Right now he is working for a great architecture firm, living in a beautiful apartment and spending his time with a wonderful man who makes him the happiest I have ever seen him in my 21 years of knowing him. But yes, please, continue to tell me all about my friend whom you’ve never met. You clearly know it all. This is not about sex. This is about love. And if you think someone should give up the ability to have a meaningful, healthy relationship with someone they love because you personally cherry pick bits and pieces of the Bible that suit your life, you’re just as selfish as the woman this piece is about. Not shocking though.

            And trust me dude, gays aren’t the only ones who practice sodomy. I know plenty of straights who love it and actively have it and enjoy it.

            Someday I pray you get out from the brainwashing oppression of religion and realize what a pawn you were for a man man ideology rested to control, scare and intimidate.

            • Objectivetruth

              Your spending a lot of time in here, Stef, why?

              We don’t spend any time on “gay” websites. Really don’t find any particular reason to go to your websites. A friend of mine looked on a gay website once, said nothing substantial to look at. So honest question: why so much time here? If you are so sure of “your side”, why would you care one iota what we think or believe? Somewhat confusing.

              God bless!

              • I don’t need to preach to the choir, that’s why. I don’t need to be in an echo chamber like you people do hearing other’s who share my opinions say YEAH YOU’RE RIGHT! My goal is to inform people who don’t know anything about gay people, talk about my best friend and his life and how great he is and the reality of him and his relationships, and if even ONE PERSON changes their mind about gay people, it’s a good day. And trust me, it’s happened. You guys want to sit around patting yoruselveson the back and agreeing with each other all day because you know you could never go onto a gay site and talk someone who is pro-equality out of that stance. Why? Because your arguments are based on personal, cherry picked religious beliefs and a seemingly personal bias against gay people based not on your actual interactions with gay people, but on your preconceived ideas about what they do and who they are. The problem is, most people who are pro lgbt are that way because they KNOW gay people. And nothing you can say about the imaginary gay people you don’t like, can change the reality of what they know personally about their gay friend or family member.

                I spend time on here to change minds. You spend time on here… to hear yourself talk and get likes from like minded people.

                • Rick

                  “Because your arguments are based on personal, cherry picked religious beliefs and a seemingly personal bias against gay people based not on your actual interactions with gay people”

                  No it is based on everything the Bible says on the subject. No cherry picking need be done its Biblical. And yes I have had interactions with Gay men and women. With the men, with only one or two exceptions every one i met turned out to be a dog, looking to get his thing on. Thats not to say they are all like that, but so far thats how the ones i have met have been. And I live in a larger city and see them and meet them all the time.

                  The women, honestly I understand them being gay, more than i do men. I have seen it be more on an emotional level but that still does not make it right.

                  Now you want to talk about this on a constitutional level? Ok you got me, on that point alone, yep the entire marriage thing sure our constitution is not based on religious belief. You want to talk about bias and treating someone less than human because they are gay…again great point they should be treated as we all want to be treated.

                  However the minute this goes to a moral or religious level you loose. All 3 of the Monotheistic religions practiced here in the USA say it is a SIN. No cherry picking, no misinterpretations its called a sin in the Bible both old and new testament. Its called a sin in the Quran. Its called a sin in the Torah.

                  And the truth is, if it were not called a sin, while you would have many folks still not agreeing with it, I for one would not care. Even with almost every gay man i have meet being a dog… lets play fair most of us guys are, gay or straight. When I was younger I have to say I was and I am not proud of the fact. I lost a real nice girl because I was a jerk.

                  I m sure your friend is a great person, and Jesus tells us to love one another, God tells us that and While many dont know it, the Quran also says that. But they all say the sexual act is an abomination. That is one of the strongest words in the Bible, and only about 10 things are called by that word by God. So if your friend follows any of these religions and truly believes, then it IS a matter of salvation. And from where I stand as a believer it is a matter of salvation even if he does not believe himself.

                  Now all that said,I have to confess I have been judgmental and that is wrong of me. But we as Christians must be honest with what the Bible teaches, many of us, myself included could be a lot better in doing that in a loving way. It comes across has a personal attach because lets face it, no one wants to be told what they are doing is wrong. But sin is sin and we all fall short, and we all have something in our lives we have, do or did hold on to that is sinful. So while you may think your doing the right thing, your not, not if your Christian. Love your friends but dont defend their sin, you would not defend them as thieves, Liers, drunks, drug addicts, adulterers, rapists, or murders, all sins, so what makes this sin different? The idea they love someone? Guess what, the adulterer may very well love the person they are messing with. The kids in high school may love each other, but that does not make their sexual sin any better. Rant over. Good luck to you and your friend

                • ForChristAlone

                  Satanic

            • Objectivetruth

              Hey Stef!

              It seems your doing a lot of bullying in your posts. Aren’t you just proving the point of the article?

              And still scratching my head. If you’re so rock solid sure of your lifestyle, why are you in here being so defensive? You seem like a bright gal, but why do you have to keep screaming at us how great, happy, “normal” you are?? Seriously……are you trying to convince us or yourself?

              • I’m bullying. You just told me I’m not normal. Right. Might want to look up the definition of bullying. Me telling you that the reality of my best friend’s existence and presence in my life is not bullying you. It’s telling you the truth about the situation that doesn’t fit your Bronze Age book inspired narrative of the world.

                Also, I’m straight honey 🙂 So by your assessment, I am “normal”. And quite happy at that :).

            • ForChristAlone

              Satan speaks a second time.

            • Fred

              My dog wags his tail furiously when I come home from work and is happy, so what does that have to do with it. Is your life little more than do what makes you feel happy at that moment? When you come to love Jesus Christ you will know true happiness, it’s more involved than selfish, temporal, happiness.

        • Objectivetruth

          Stef……see my post below……you repeatedly are trying to convince us how great you and your lifestyle is, why?? But you seem so sad and angry. Anything you wish to discuss?

          • GG

            Part of the syndrome.

        • ForChristAlone

          Satan speaks

    • GG

      How sickening to read your inverted reality. Just sick.

    • ForChristAlone

      Satanic

  • Michael

    Ha! This from the side that gleefully threw starving children under the bus when World Vision exercised its freedom of speech and religious liberty! Can we also say Starbucks and Target…and now Good.As.You? Sounds like the “tolerant” right needs Jesus and “Janna” needs counseling to get over her hatred of males.

    • Fred

      There is no tolerance for unrepentant sinful behavior, and there is no hate for the sinner. We long to save souls, but ultimately individuals are responsible for their actions and will have to face God. We all sin by the way, though some sins are more serious than others. In the sexual realm pornography and adultery also destroy marriages, lives and families. So does sodomy.

      • I actually know a lot of straight married couples where sodomy SAVED their marriage. 😉

        • GG

          The unhinged believe anything.

        • ForChristAlone

          You lie. This is satanic.

          • Hard to lie when I’m a straight girl who has done it and so have many, many of my straight married friends.

            Get out more. If you think married straights are doing it with the lights on missionary style for procreation purposes we’ll… I wouldn’t be shocked, actually..

            • ForChristAlone

              Satan speaks yet again through Stephanie

            • Fred

              You do realize that beyond the disease issue which comes from contact with and spread of fecal bacteria that the anus was not intended for penetration in that way. Beyond the lack of natural lubrication the tissues are much more delicate than in the vagina and prone to lesions and infection, as well as the long term consequences of herniation later in life after repeated exposure. If people did and died immediately people would get it, like with the panic over Ebola today, but unfortunately some people chose to fall prey to ignorance until they realize that they have become the prey. The prince of this world has tentacles all over you, open your eyes and free your soul. I’m immune from insults by the way because I love and trust in Jesus Christ, and my prayers are for you. The fact that you come back here tells me you must have inner doubt and turmoil, though I don’t expect you to admit it. Find out what true love is.

    • GG

      You are very confused.

  • autdrew

    I am friends with a wonderful Catholic woman who was in a sacramental marriage. They had several sons. One day the military sent him away for training and he decided that he would throw it all away for a man he met there. My heart was crushed for this poor woman, her youngest but an infant. All the love, commitments, sacrifices, for nothing.She gave up her career to follow his and he does this soul destroying thing to not just her but to his sons. For Christmas. smh He wanted her to just let his new boyfriend jump right in and meet the children and couldn’t understand why she said no. He is in the grip of something that has him only concerned with himself & what he wants. The children had to be uprooted because she had to go home to her parents to live while she tries to piece her life back together again. I would have NEVER thought that this would happen. When they broke up suddenly, I assumed an affair but never expected the extent. They were a good, Catholic family, regularly attending Mass together, he was involved as a dad, they had 3 babies in rapid order so we assumed there was love between them. My husband even joked that with this guy, his “gaydar” never went off. That article could have been written about my friend. God protect & be with the children today

    • Fred

      Sorry to hear.

  • John200

    We are informed that homo”sex”ual activity does not hurt anyone. But if you start to look for victims of the effects of homo”sex”ual activity, you will find them by all over the place:
    1)the homo”sex”ual himself, done out of a good life by his own actions,
    2)the man he is destroying, ditto,
    3)others who would have benefited if the homo”sex”ual had been a decent person, and
    4)society as a whole, which pays for the costs created by homo”sex”ual activity.

    Mr. Ruse (building on Janna Darnelle’s story) explores one form of category 3) victim. For his exertions, he was rewarded with the childish, selfish, foot stamping tantrum that is the signature of the “non serviam” type. Two year olds are more convincing, and more sincere.

    This is because these boys are basically selfish “Non serviam” types.

    RCIA, boys. RCIA, pronto.

  • Titan000

    ”To gay men, women are no more than breeders to be used or parodied.
    “Practically speaking, Scott Rose and his compatriots have formed a
    men’s rights group that seeks to use women as breeders. These egg donors
    and surrogate mothers supply infants for a bustling market full of
    same-sex couples, for whom reproduction is naturally and biologically
    impossible.” Edelman says they are out to erase women.”

    Fag rights. As far as I know there is no evidence that men’s rights as a whole have nothing to do with this.

    • Daniel P

      Surely we can all agree *this* sort of rhetoric is unacceptable?

      • Titan000

        Yep.

      • Titan000

        Homosexual rights then. Using the old english word for happy to mean homosexual is damnable.

        • Daniel P

          Well, now that you changed the objectionable word, I have no objections.

  • lifeknight

    JMJ+
    Wow! Over seven hundred comments! That may be a record for Crisis—any regulars know? Obviously some “trolls” have picked up on the site, but it makes for better verbal jousting. Onward Christian soldiers!

    • Fred

      Some subjects seem to resonate more universally than others, go figure. If we can lead others to Christ who must come here out of some sense of guilt then I say Halleluja for that.

      • Scott W.

        I’ve kicked around the idea that when the neo-Pagan religion that has swallowed Western civilization decides to drop the mask of neutral secularism and goes into full-assault mode, homosexuality will be the spear point. I think these threads attract all sorts because people instinctively know this.

        • Fred

          I read the statements today from the Synod and am struggling to understand their thinking. Nothing official yet, and not a real change in the position on the unnatural act of homosexuality, but in keeping with our Pope’s desire for openness rather than confrontation. I question the wisdom because I think it communicates conformity to the world we live rather than the world Christ gave us. I would prefer an approach more like Jesus’s admonition to those who would stone the woman adulterer, chastise those who would condemn her while offering a swift rebuke to go and sin no more. The secular world is happy to rejoice in the former but drown out the message of the rebuke while they continue to revel is sin. I know those who sin rarely respond to stern criticism of behavior so maybe this approach will bring them around slowly, we’ll see. I think history has shown time and time again that appeasement (which this smells of even though it may not be outright) always fails to achieve the desired results.

  • Fred

    Remember, there are still gentiles today who still don’t know God’s love for them, and there are stiff necked people who hear God’s call but turn away ashamed, consumed by their own selfish desires. The mission to spread the good news is no different than when Christ walked among us, and we must be patient, loving and kind. The fact that so many come here to discuss their sins I find heartening because it tells me that they are wrestling with their own inner turmoil, and maybe, just maybe, they will hear and come to understand.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Let’s play a little game this morning, shall we?

    I’ll ask, you answer: How many Synod Fathers are Gay Bullyboys?

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/first-synod-report-homosexual.html#more

    • GG

      It is distressing.

    • Fred

      Ask yourself a question, if you were the prince of this world and your main goal was to destroy Christ’s mission on earth, how best would you go about than to infiltrate and divide. The church is made up of men and women inspired by Christ who are not above succumbing to sin. Being ordained does not give one supernatural powers. We must always be ever vigilant in helping one another moving away from lives of sin, and understanding the grace God gives us when repent and ask for forgiveness.

  • bonaventure

    N.B.: The content of my question is a re-post from a question I asked the Crisis editors earlier. I hope it won’t get removed as spam.

    Mr. Ruse,

    As you may be aware, there has apparently been some development today, Monday October 13th, at the synod of bishops in Rome.

    Rumors are, that the synod fathers are coming with a development of sacramental doctrine, which John Allen calls “lifestyle ecumenism.” This apparently induced some authorities to say that homosexuals can offer a “gift” to the Christian community, and that Péter Erdő is open to the “the possibility of recognizing positive elements even in the imperfect forms that may be found” in “irregular” situations, i.e., in homosexual relationships, etc.

    Do you have any information, etc., about these rumors? All I could find online was second hand.

    Thank You,

    Bonaventure

    Sources: Crux and Washington Times from Oct. 13th, 2014

    • Objectivetruth

      Deep breathes…..

      I’ve read several articles on what happened today at the synod. My take is nothing doctrinally is changing (homosexual acts still a sin, no gay marriage, for example) but the Church is trying a pastoral way to accept those of that have homosexual tendencies. And the wording is key. Liberal press outlets are using the word “gay” versus “homosexual” (which Erdo is carefully using) as in “the Church is more accepting to gays.” No, the Church is not about to deny the gospels and start marrying gays.

      Anyone else have thoughts??

      • GG

        The Polish Bishop’s conference has said publicly the document is unacceptable. Keep in mind this is a mid synod document used to formulate further discussion and is not authoritative. To be sure, it is a liberal shopping spree and the Pope has not stopped it.

        It is a grave error and a scandal. It will be spun by the soft right in the usual ways ignoring the serious damage it has already done.

        • Objectivetruth

          Exactly. It’s to facilitate discussion. The problem is these things were once discussed behind closed doors, now the synod is televised. And all this only adds to confusing the faithful.

          • GG

            True, but the wording in the document is absolutely scandalous. It is not acceptable and is the type of thing you would expect from the Unitarians or such.

            That they feel free to publish such things shows a boldness that is troubling.

            The usual suspects will blame the media.

            • Objectivetruth

              OK…..my rosary tonight before bed is for the bishops.

      • GG

        Btw, you can go to the Vatican website and read the English version.

        • Objectivetruth

          Thanks! I pray my archbishop (Chaput) will firmly speak up against this.

          It’s confusing GG, what are they thinking??!! It’s almost like they want it both ways: “we love you gays and want to somehow include you, but understand we find your lifestyle really, really sinful.” I’m confused. I think (hopefully!) the bishops are saying that celibate homosexuals who follow Church teaching should be recognized for the “gifts” they bring to the Church.

          Then again…..I don’t know!

          • GG

            I think the orthodox Cardinals, like Burke, are frustrated by the way the Synod is set up. It is set up for the Liberals to have the upper hand. Read thecatholicthing.org as one source.

            The Pope has already appointed a few liberals as an ad hoc committee because the conservatives have been making too many inroads.

            It is a fight. The libs see their opportunity and are pouncing.

            • Objectivetruth

              I guess for 2,000 years it’s been done this way by our “earthen vessels.” I can imagine the scandal and shouting match in the first century between Peter and Paul over the evangelization of Gentiles issue.

      • bonaventure

        Objectivetruth,

        I’ve read your exchange with GG about today’s synod document/report (the one that GG says the Polish bishop find unacceptable). I went on the Vatican website, but did not find it. Would you have a link to it?

        Thanks for your input and answer to my question. Of course, I understand that at this point there are many conjectures. The editors of Crisis — whom I asked the same question on today’s front page article — are saying that their Rome correspondent will be getting this think cleared up for their readers as soon as possible.

        Anyway, I would appreciate a link to the most recent synod document/report, if you have one. Don’t want to sound like I’m asking someone else to do my job, but I honestly could not find it.

        Thanks in advance,

        Bonaventure

  • Cap America

    The whole Gay Prosecution thing rests on a couple of factors:

    (a) the professional activists—to keep their positions or jobs—need ever-new targets to keep going, raise money, continue their power;

    (b) they’re a bit intoxicated. There is no public philosophy in America in 2014, no commonly shared values other than radical libertarianism and whatever the courts can impose by threat of force upon the public. In this vacuum, the loudest shouter wins and wins and wins.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    This article is now netting comments unrelated to its intent – even my last one. The editors should post an article specific to the Synod and the subject of homosexuality.

    As I said earlier (though not as a prophecy) that the Synod’s forst public brawl would be about homosexuality and not the months on end debate on communion and the devoriced.

    The smoke which has slithered into the Synod Hall is stinks of Queer Theory. It Queer Theory which must b exposed; its choking of the Church’s throat to voice the Truth – to speak within the pure air of Scripture & Tradition. Queer Theory has coiled its ashy plumes around the very language of bishops and documents. It has been so subtle, so snaky in its crusade to entice and constrict the living life of God from the Church. Queer Theory has now stood on cloven feet, raised itself for a hearing of bishops, cardinals – and pope.

    How did that happen? What in the Hell is Queer Theory? Name it. Isolate it. Aim for it. De-fang it. Let it crawl with St. Patrick’s exiled serpents into the Irish Sea.

    If any ground sniffing, slithering snake wold be wearing a bishop’s miter – so be it.

    Dear Editors: Give us a Synod article that we can hang our comments on – break a record.

    Sincerely yours,

    “So Many Dead Bodies”
    (California: The BANKRUPT Diocese of Stockton)

  • Rockon

    The more sensible “gays” are the ones not involved in any political activism.

  • Cap America

    . . . and now comes word that the lesbian mayor of Houston is having a police crackdown on religious sermons that mention homosexuality!

    I think this all wakes us up. We’re not asleep on the persecution; it starts small and will grow.

    I knew back in the 1990s that the “hate crime” rules would end up being used the same way that the communists used such things—to broadly persecute any opposition to the regime.

  • Helen

    where is the catholic church?

    • Busy shifting priests accused of molesting scores of children to other parishes and moving their money around to avoid paying victims?

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    JUST SENT THIS TO PATRIARCH KRILL OF MOSCOW. A bit exaggerated in tone? Maybe. But, then Prof Robert George’s consolations & cautions (today) over a Public Discourse is no comfort.. Expected reply from some office secretary of His Holiness? None. But that wasn’t the point. (Placing it here simply to post to my Profile.)
    ____________________________________________________________________

    Moscow Patriarchate
    Your Holiness, Patriarch Krill
    Moscow, Russia

    Your Excellency,

    It
    has been sometime. The proper greeting has slipped my mind. Had left
    the Orthodox Church a decade ago so things are no longer second nature,
    easy at hand.

    Maybe there’s a regret in that.

    Am also worldly-wise enough to know that email postings rarely reach their intended target. But I’ll try. And be brief.

    Am
    now Catholic. Rome is holding its Extraordinary Synod on the Family
    (so-called). It has turned into a rout, a disaster. Regardless of those
    bishop faithful to the millennial traditions of the Church and its
    Scriptures.

    It is reported that the Vatican (the Papacy) is
    willing to reconsider homosexuality along with “unions”. I have “been
    around teh block” – as we put it here – often enough not to be beguiled
    by weasel (serpent) words. Something called Queer Theory has snaked its
    smoke into the Synod Hall. It seems that now homosexuality – in itself,
    as condition and act – is to be accepted as a privileged spirituality. A
    gnosis which the Body of Christ must now receive and submit to.

    Am pleading, begging on knee.

    Dear
    Father of Christian soul, please voice your concern. Publicly. Manly.
    As all good men must do, with a touch of righteous violence! Make your
    voice heard. Have President Putin stand my your side. That will get the
    attention of both the Vatican and the Media. They – especially the
    White House – for his defense of Russian youth against the Gay
    Bully-boys

    (That reference is Mr. Austen Ruse’s term, whose
    recent trip to Moscow in defense of families everywhere, inspired my
    courage to write this note. Those Bully-Boys – even the Catholic ones –
    have maligned and persecuted Mr. Ruse and his work. There’s no better
    word for it. [For Mr. Ruse’s articles see his archive on
    http://www.crisismagazine.com Especially the one titled, “Real Victims of the
    Gay Bullyboys.)

    On the Synod in Rome I have found the recent postings and articles on this site helpful: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

    Still, a Servant in Christ. With warm, heartening memories of once being Orthodox.

    [NAME deleted]
    [ADDRESS deleted] California, USA

    NOTE:
    Had walked away from Orthodoxy for this & that, but mostly due to a
    local scandal in a parish in California (Ben Lomond) under the Antiochians.
    That was then. Today is today – being much befuddled with my eye on
    Rome.

    AND THIS: If the Gay Bullies have their way in Rome it’s
    more than a local scandal – its universal. In time its poisoned ether
    will fog every Christian nook and cranny. Read the recent postings on
    the site linked – the Africans are fuming. Yet, maybe the ancient
    Africans will trump the German barbarians with their phalanx of Gay
    Bullies crossing the Tiber into Vatican City. One, would think we have
    enough on our hands with the Islamist horde. Answer this – how many
    Christian churches in Nigeria have been torched, turned into ash while
    all this nonsense was going on in Rome. How many plains and river beds,
    town and villages, cleansed of Christians in ancient Nineveh? How many
    Christian wives and daughters sent to the slave markets in Fallujah?
    How many Christian boys have been buggered and crucified in Mosul while
    these Catholic Gay Bullies have been exalting the special spirituality
    of anal sex?

    Forgive my crudeness! But, then, what is happening
    today in Rome is more than crude; it is the perversion of the Gospel of
    our Lord Savior. And, it is, in fact, a grave moral offense against our
    children. President Putin should be hellish mad. No one here seems to
    be.

  • Maria Gabriela Salvarrey Rodri

    “The only ones to hold them off are the more sensible of the LGBT movement. Where are they?”
    Their hiding out with all the moderate Muslims who should come out and condemn Islamist terror.

    • “more sensible of the LGBT movement”. I hate to break it to you, but most everyone in the LGBT movement are sensible. Most everyone who is on your side seeking to restrict the lives of people you don’t know because of personal chosen faith or ice factor or pearl clutching, are non-sensible.

  • Charlie McDonald

    I don’t even know where to begin. I doubt that any attempt I make to help you understand my life would evoke empathy from you. I was raised Catholic and I’m gay. I believe in God and God’s love for all of his children. It is so disheartening to see you label us as the “gay bullyboys” when my entire life I have been subjected to the psychological warfare that you perpetrate that being gay is inferior. From when I was a little child we played “Smear the Queer” a form of football. To this day a huge portion of your heterosexual culture uses the word “gay” to mean something sucks or that it’s derogatory. Every day you tell us how we are worthless, less than, that we shouldn’t exist, that we don’t belong in your clean pure society. All of my entire life I have endured this psychological degradation and now I read you telling me that I’m the bully? Have you no heart? Do you even know God or Jesus’ love? What kind of person are you?

    • Charlie. I hate to say it, but this’ll fall on deaf ears. Somehow your plight to make sure other children don’t experience what you had to as a child, by way of demanding respect that everyone else gets, turns into these guys being the victims because they can’t get their way and tell you you’re a terrible person.

      They have no concept of real victimhood (nor do I, I am straight). You’d love to give them a day in your childhood and let them see what it really meant, eh?

  • LibertyWriter

    One’s acceptance in a polite society does not mean that I have to agree
    with, condone behaviors or especially celebrate a perverse lifestyle to
    extend to one his or her acceptance in a polite society.

  • Andreas Meyer

    No privileges for perverts please.

  • gigi4747

    I oppose same sex “marriage” with every fiber of my being. But this woman really does seem emotionally imbalanced. Her ex husband is obviously abusive and inappropriate. Does any intelligent adult honestly believe that these traits didn’t manifest themselves prior to her husband coming out? (And no doubt he “decided” he was gay years ago; like many gays and lesbians, he seems to have married his spouse under false pretenses). If she truly had no inkling he was gay, then I guess I understand her being shocked, feeling betrayed, etc. But come on – any emotionally healthy woman, while feeling sad, betrayed, foolish for being duped, etc, would ultimately just let this creep go and be glad he was gone. Of course she doesn’t want her kids being used as props, but same sex “marriage” laws didn’t make this possible. The guy could have had a commitment ceremony or some foolishness and still have used the kids to his advantage. The fact he is willing to use his children is yet another of the countless reasons she should be grateful he’s gone. Besides that, it sounds like what she should really be angry about is our easy divorce laws. Those are what made her marriage easy to dissolve.

    Please, my fellow traditional marriage supporters, remember this story the next time you defend the idea of heterosexual marriage for the liars who claim they “used to be gay.” That’s obviously just another method of using gullible people.

  • Glen

    Do you know why you people keep losing and are astonished when you do?

    Because , as is evident by this article and the commenters, you simply do not live in a reality based world. Nor can you see beyond the tips of your own noses, think critically, or comprehend complexity or nuance.

    And so the “evil” intellectuals will continue to bowl you over.

  • TH

    Anyone know how to contact Mr. Ruse directly? I am working on a school project and would like to interview him if possible but I can’t find any contact information.

  • Nancy Reisiger Rice

    Another term for the Gay Bullyboys is The Lavender Mafia. They are organised and embedded everywhere. They are much more insidious because they target and threaten whistle blowers, peoples families, workplaces, no area of their lives is exempt from the Lavender Mafia’s viscious hatred. Also, if there ever was an investigation for sexual and other abuses going on in the public school systems, there is so much of it happening from teachers, coaches, staff members etc. that it would clog the courts for decades.

    • Parque_Hundido

      Isn’t that the lesson we learned from you clergy?

  • climate3

    Austin, stop lying. Hooper found her full name through an amicus brief she submitted. However, he never went after her nor her family. And you should talk after what you said about lining professors up and shooting them.

  • Parque_Hundido

    Is this some kind of right-wing, homophobic version of Lifetime Television? The histrionics, the self flattery and the shallow lies are all dead giveaways. I can’t decide whether this is meant as parody or as a real editorial. I hope it’s the former; the comments suggest the latter.

MENU