Ruthless Ideology and the End of Debate

Some days ago, Josh Barro of the New York Times tweeted the following message: “Anti-LGBT attitudes are terrible for people in all sorts of communities. They linger and oppress, and we need to stamp them out, ruthlessly.”

It’s quite a statement for a public figure to make—for anyone to make—but especially one supposedly devoted to high-level journalism and policy. In a moment of “graciousness,” he clarified that he isn’t calling for anyone’s death, just that “we should make anti-LGBT views shameful like segregation. Not saying we should off people.”

Ryan T. Anderson, co-author of What is Marriage? and a noted exponent of traditional marriage engaged Barro, also via Twitter. At one point, Barro claims that Anderson’s views are simply unacceptable, the sort, apparently, needing to be ruthlessly stamped out, asking “why would you expect me to be civil toward you? You devote your life to promoting anti-gay public policies.” To this Anderson replies, quite civilly, “I think even in the midst of disagreement we should treat all people with respect. Apparently you don’t. sad.”

If you’ve ever been part of a conversation fraught with such tension, perhaps at a Thanksgiving dinner with relatives (or I’ve heard it can happen there), you know there’s a point where you have to decide to tone it back, turn the cheek, agree to disagree, or at least confine yourself to argument and debate rather than name-calling or flat-out meanness. Barro didn’t take that approach, instead doubling-down on his sentiment, asserting that “we should treat all people with respect? obviously not,” and that everyone thinks so, for there are some views, like segregation, which “obviously … render people unworthy of respect.”

To this Anderson—who is, in Barro’s judgment, obviously the bigoted one—responds: “people are always worthy of respect, even if their policy views are misguided. Nothing renders ‘people unworthy of respect’ wow.”

Perhaps the various commentary on the episode is unnecessary, making mountains of molehills. Social media is notorious for prompting incivility, and the 140 character limit of Twitter is not conducive to all the nuances and subtleties that intelligence demands.

Still, Anderson (and also Ross Douthat) are able to at least refer to more substantial argumentation present elsewhere, and Anderson quite obviously expresses a commitment and desire for moral seriousness and mutual respect, so it’s not impossible to disagree reasonably even in the staccato bursts of tweets.

And Barro doesn’t go gently, rejecting any notion of “magnanimity” in the dispute over “gay rights.” Apparently this was not merely a moment of ill-temper or incautious speech so much as an existential commitment to delegitimizing dissent and vilifying any who think differently, no matter how serious, calm, or sustained their arguments or willingness to dialogue. Those people? “we need to stamp them out, ruthlessly.”

Years ago, the political theorist Eric Voegelin wrote a prescient little essay, “On Debate and Existence,” explaining why it is that some interlocutors could not reach agreement, “or even an honest disagreement” about issues:

Rational argument could not prevail because the partner to the discussion did not accept as binding for himself the matrix of reality in which all specific questions concerning our existence as human beings are ultimately rooted; he has overlaid the reality of existence with another mode … called the Second Reality. The argument could not achieve results, it had to falter and peter out, as it became increasingly clear that not argument was pitched against argument, but that behind the appearance of a rational debate there lurked the difference of two modes of existence, of existence in truth and existence in untruth.

At several points in the Barro/Anderson discussion, Anderson asks for his argument to be considered—“Please read my book, the one Justice Alito cited twice. Or read my brief. we may disagree, but no need to be uncivil,” even referring to natural law, the “2,500 year old tradition of thinking that runs through Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, Kant MLK.” Barro is having none of it: “why would you expect me to be civil toward you?” When Anderson attempts to clarify that he’s really for marriage equality, but that the debate is about the definition of marriage, the rejoinder is ad hominem, with Barro opining that he’s “for equal rights and you’re [Anderson] for policies that disfavor gays and lesbians,” and that he won’t be taken in by “doublespeak” or refinements of argument, however robust the tradition.

This isn’t really a debate, in other words. While Anderson rather calmly, despite the invective thrown his way, makes his arguments, appeals to other sources, indicates a long chain of reasoning developed over the centuries, Barro simply claims moral superiority, discounting every counter-argument as just more tiresome evidence of Anderson’s ignorance. One gets the sense that Barro interprets every attempt to make an argument against him as proof that the other side is benighted and wicked, as if reasonability renders a position illegitimate. Worse: that to offer reasons in favor of such an obviously oppressive position renders the person illegitimate, not just the position. To argue, then, is to be proven wrong by the mere fact of making the argument.

According to Voegelin, such breakdowns of reason are relatively recent phenomena, the product of ideological thinking which emerged after roughly 1500 AD. Prior to ideology, debate occurred in an assumption that there was a truth about the good, and that we were beholden to it, even guarding the truth against error. In fact, that’s what debate was all about, guarding truth against error, even your own. To argue was to accept, and cherish, deep springs of truth at the center of reality, but for the ideologue reason was an instrument of power, a Promethean revolt against reality, and reason served our will. No longer would we seek to understand reality, but we would go to war against it, using all our cunning to bend and shape it to our fancy.

For the ideologue, the humility of a thinker attempting to live in the deep truth of existence is an affront, and they were not so much to be disputed within the great nexus of reality but destroyed. Stamped out. No wonder, then, that ideologues were behind so much of the great moral horrors of political violence of the twentieth century, for they used a boot rather than a syllogism to convince.

We see such ideology all around us. In the (usually) mindless retort that the adherents of tradition are “haters,” for there is no need to answer haters, they should just be silenced. In the (always) thoughtless claim to be on the “right side of history,” as if some historical process or Absolute Spirit simply marched with inexorable force on the side of “right thinking people.”

There is no such historical force. It is pure ideology to think so. And the notion of “right thinking people” begs the very question at issue, simply asserting a moral ultimacy that is not at all obvious. And no one is a hater merely because they disagree, although some do hate, and that’s a scandal.

We shouldn’t be surprised. Throughout his pontificate, John Paul II repeatedly analyzed the implications of severing freedom from truth, noting that when freedom was understood to be the sole source of value we would lose not only truth, but also intelligence. Even, in the end, true freedom itself. And he recognized that those who expressed allegiance to truth and the careful work of intelligence needed to understand it would be viewed as obscurantist and spiteful. In Evangelium Vitae he states, in the context of anti-life proponents,

Nor can it be denied that the mass media are often implicated in this conspiracy, by lending credit to that culture which presents recourse to contraception, sterilization, abortion and even euthanasia as a mark of progress and a victory of freedom, while depicting as enemies of freedom and progress those positions which are unreservedly pro-life.

Perhaps Josh Barro represents this, I don’t know. I do know that we shouldn’t be shocked if ideologues disparage debate. Our first task is always fidelity, including fidelity to the demands of reason, and so we must calmly argue on, not giving in to either despair or anger. And another task remains, always, which is to be the messengers of God’s grace.

Voegelin, however much I admire his analysis, left little room for grace in his explanation of the failure of debate. We can’t do that. There’s always grace, and thus there’s always graciousness, and to that we are called, always.

Editor’s note: Pictured above is Charlie Chaplin as “The Great Dictator” (1940).

R. J. Snell

By

R. J. Snell directs the Center on the University and Intellectual Life at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, and is a senior fellow at the Agora Institute for Civic Virtue and the Common Good. He is the author (with Steve Cone) of Authentic Cosmopolitanism: Love, Sin, and Grace in the Christian University. His latest books are Acedia and Its Discontents: Metaphysical Boredom in an Empire of Desire and The Perspective of Love.

  • ForChristAlone

    #1 Moderns do not have the intellectual tools necessary to process all that is unnatural about homosexuality so they resort to the law of the jungle.

    #2 An example of this street bullying intimidation was evinced by Nancy Pelosi’s breaking all House rules of decorum by racing across the aisle to confront down a Republican who happened to call her on her hypocrisy regarding immigration

    The days of Catholic Kristallnacht are here. The question for us now is what will we do when they want to ghettoize us?

    • hdtex

      Bitch please. You put yourselves in your ghetto.

    • Sven2547

      The days of Catholic Kristallnacht are here. The question for us now is what will we do when they come to ghettoize us?

      You cheapen the atrocities of the Third Reich by stooping to such hyperbole.

      The institution of no-fault divorce did not force Roman Catholic churches to solemnize remarriages. The end of Prohibition did not require Mormons to start drinking. Loving v Virginia did not require Southern Baptists to start marrying interracial couples. From whence comes this baseless fear-mongering of yours?

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    We should not overestimate the powers of reason.

    Bl John Henry Newman is clearly right, when he observes that “all reasoning being from premises, and those premises arising (if it so happen) in their first elements from personal characteristics, in which men are in fact in essential and irremediable variance one with another, the ratiocinative talent can do no more than point out where the difference between them lies, how far it is immaterial, when it is worth while continuing an argument between them, and when not.”

    Pascal, too, insists that “We know truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart, and it is in this last way that we know first principles; and reason, which has no part in it, tries in vain to impugn them… For the knowledge of first principles, as space, time, motion, number, is as sure as any of those which we get from reasoning. And reason must trust this knowledge of the heart and of instinct, and must base every argument on them. The heart senses [Le cœur sent] that there are three dimensions in space and that the numbers are infinite, and reason then shows that there are no two square numbers one of which is double of the other. Principles are intuited, propositions are inferred, all with certainty, though in different ways.”

  • FB

    NYT practicing high level journalism – you are kidding aren’t you? I’d only use it line a hamster cage, and then only if someone gave it to me. Like the thread yesterday, why don’t we call it the community of sodomites? It’s more inclusive, descriptive and clear.

    • DE-173

      BIrd cage. The hamster would have to step on it to relieve itself, and we should be against such gratuitous cruelty.

    • Paul

      Hear, hear !!! The NYT and the Washington Post a close second !

  • Objectivetruth

    “Quid est Veritas?”

    Both sides in a discussion should agree that the goal of the argument is to pursuit what the truth is. The problem most of the time with the person taking the LGBT side is emotions, feelings, and desires are used to justify their position. And when the other side tries to reason with open ended questions discussing the natural law, male/female complimentarity, the procreative aspects of sex, the purpose of marriage, the LGBT side has no response but to attack you personally as a “homophobe”, a hater, etc. I see this also when discussing social issues with fellow Catholics. When I use the phrase “but what does the Catholic Church teach us?” With Catholics that are pro gay, pro IVF/surrogacy, pro contraception/abortion, I’m called a “hypocrite”, “holier than though”, “who are YOU to judge.” Frustrating. I’ll always try to calmly respond: “Feel free to call me what you want. But what does the Catholic Church teach us?”

    • Fred

      Why not even make it more clear and direct and just say “what does Christ tell us”? That way those that hate the church can’t spew their venom at an inanimate object and instead reveal who it is they truly disdain. The emotional aspect comes from it being forced upon us to accept perversion through the persecution of law, but we all know not all laws are just like with the sanctioning of killing holy innocents in the womb. Sin is sin, whether it’s sodomy or adultery, etc.

      • Objectivetruth

        True, but…….my goal with a fellow Catholic is to promote a catechetical based discussion. Many Catholics don’t know what the Church teaches, let alone have picked up and studied the Catechism. In a fairly heated discussion with a fellow Catholic over IVF/surrogacy, I told him to find out for himself, to google “Catholic teaching IVF surrogacy” and see what pops up. If you do google this topic, about 800,000 pages come up discussing how the Church teaches IVF is gravely immoral and never justified. The Church is the mouthpiece of Christ (Matthew 16.) Ignorance of Church teaching, is ignorance of Christ.

        • The Truth

          I had returned to church after a 30 yr. absence. After much reading and praying. Reading and listening to many Protestant ministers female and male. Reading the Bible and listening to many priests, I have concluded that the church hasn’t taught the truth since Vatican II. The fact is most Catholics are Protestant’s that want the Church to adopt Protestant beliefs. How many Catholics do you know practice natural family planning or have even heard of it? I never knew anything and I only learned about it by doing my own searching for the truth. Which we all must do, but the Church should be teaching this in grade school. The children need to learn the true teaching’s of the church. We are ALL “hypocrit’s” to the world. According to them if you sin yourself you can’t call out sin. But if you truly love someone and want them to have eternal life, and to have abundant life here, you must call sin sin. The Catechism is great. Read Theology of the Body EXPLAINED. Read it again. Sometimes we can read passages from the Bible and have no clue as to what they are saying. Then 3 months down the road read them again and suddenly the darkness lifts and the light comes on. It’s a journey. God commands we follow. That’s our choice, God gives us free will. No one wants to have to force someone to love them, that’s not love. The first thing God said to Adam and Eve, was to go forth and multiply, as far as I know that was not rescinded. As I post this many many Catholic Churches are closing and combining. Why? No parishioners. Back in the day families had 7, 8 or 9 children. children are our future. No children no future.

          • DE-173

            “I have concluded that the church hasn’t taught the truth since Vatican II.”

            “How many Catholics do you know practice natural family planning or have even heard of it?”

            Was Humanae Vitae rescinded, annulled or modified?

            Look on page 3. It appears every week.

            http://www.holynameofjesus.com/Parish/Bulletin/20140810B.pdf

          • James

            “The fact is most Catholics are Protestant’s that want the Church to adopt Protestant beliefs.”

            There is a longstanding Anglo-Irish-American Catholic inferiority complex. In the English-speaking world, Protestantism is associated with prosperity and prominence and Catholicism with poverty. Therefore, some Catholics see adopting Protestant beliefs as showing that they have “arrived”.

    • DE-173

      “The problem most of the time with the person taking the LGBT side is emotions, feelings, and desires are used to justify their position.”

      Almost any hard left, secular, collectivist or statist social or political prescription invariable begins with “I feel that…”

      • The Truth

        We all try to justify thing’s in our lives. We try to avoid what we know we must change. Socialist’s use emotions to further their agenda. They play on emotions instead of fact and truth. Who hasn’t had to discipline their children and “feel” bad about it? But if you don’t discipline your children you are doing more harm than good. When Jesus was in the Garden before Judas betrayed Him, Peter told Him to run away. Peter loved Jesus and wanted to help him. He allowed his emotions to rule him. Jesus said get behind me Satan, I must do my Father’s will. Anyone think Jesus wanted to be crucified? It’s much easier to run away. Anyone that follows Christ will eventually end up where He did. On a Cross being crucified in one way or the other. If not you’re just looking for glory without the pain.

        • BillinJax

          No man has ever been lonelier than Jesus was on His way to Calvary.
          No burden was so heavy nor injustice as great as His complete and total
          acceptance of the “cross of love” for all mankind which our heavenly Father
          placed upon His shoulders for our salvation.
          Do you see the awesome intensity of the Fathers love for us here? That He
          would allow a scene such as this in order that we, His children might be saved.
          This was His incarnate body being ripped to shreds; His precious blood poured
          upon the ground; His blessed virgin mother witnessing the ugly brutality
          against the child they shared together. And at a distance the disciple’s pity,
          though heart felt, was overcome by their fear of religious and political
          authorities. Yes, Jesus our brother was a loner within His suffering but
          universal in His love and eternal passion for our salvation.
          Jesus has shown us how to suffer for the sake of our Father and his people.
          As redeemed Christians we are by choice now a family of suffering souls who can
          rise above pain, rejection, abuse, or ridicule and not wonder why or seek
          answers for its presence in our lives. We know because our brother, the
          crucified, has set the tone of our transformation by and through His glorious
          cross.
          All Christians, through original sin, are justly tied to the cross with
          Jesus and should welcome a personal measure of suffering that we might share in
          His resurrection. To deny or avoid that cross or that measure would be to deny
          Christ. Accept and cherish our Holy Cross for it is truly God’s gift of eternal
          life for us; our shared symbol of love for Truth.

          Lord Jesus, though we have chosen to follow in your footsteps to the cross
          of our salvation, our human weaknesses often tempt us to recoil at the thought
          or sight of suffering. We pray your infinite mercy will help us to remember
          always the celestial love of the Father and His willingness to suffer through
          and with you on the cross for us knowing that we are truly fortunate for any
          opportunity to share and offer our portion with you that we may one day share
          eternity with Him.
          BillinJax

      • BillinJax

        And somewhere shortly after that “and we can no longer tolerate…….”

    • John Rockson

      You don’t honestly believe that the only response to such things is to call you names do you? Each one of those things was put to trial in Michigan’s marriage ban review, and they were all deemed completely irrelevant when it comes to secular law.

      • Objectivetruth

        Where, in my post, do I refer to the “Michigan ban review?” How is that relevant to what I have posted?

        The reasoning of my argument is that homosexual acts (and along the same continuum, the LGBT lifestyles) go against the natural law.

    • The Truth

      Absolute Relativism. Great book. The truth is subjective. Therefore there is no truth, at least according to liberals. People are also confused with the statement judge not others. We have to judge people’s ACTIONS. We must call sin sin, in order to teach the truth. The hard part is doing it with with love. We get frustrated and angry because people just refuse to hear it. But after yrs. of being in the dark the truth is hard to hear. If at all. God is the Judge on Judgement Day not us. We can’t know the internal battle’s people wage everyday, the spiritual and mental and physical problems. That being said if we don’t speak up for the truth we will be judged also, for dereliction. Sin is sin. Culpability will be God’s to discern. Doesn’t change the sin. First you have the crime, sin against God. then you have the punishment based on culpability. I can’t send anyone to hell, but your actions alone area punishment. After sin hurts the sinner more than anyone else. Think about it, sin separates you from God. With God there is heaven, without God there is hell. We punish ourselves more than God does. By sinning we reject His love.

  • publiusnj

    The Catholic Church is going to need to speak out more forcefully for Traditional Values and Traditional Marriage; the politicians ain’t going to do it. Nor are the politician “justices” now sitting on the Supreme Court Bench likely to do so. Not even “values Republicans.” The Protestant churches aren’t going to do it either because their voices are Legion.

    So that leaves the Una, Sancta Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia. It needs to proclaim the good news of Straight Civilization from the chanceries and the pulpits. Straightforwardly and pointedly. With a well-thought out message. With a minimum of the usual “on the one hand we love the sinner; on the other we must regretfully note that the sin is a violation of the same prohibition that straight adultery violates.” The message can include some humor, but it needs to be courageous. Otherwise, two thousand years of civilization will be demolished 140 characters at a time. The boys on the Normandy Beach didn’t fight for Gay Rights or Pot Legalization, but our children will think that in the next generation because that is what Liberty is supposedly all about.

    • DE-173

      And by Church, make no mistake, it’ll have to be the people in the pews.

      http://www.anitacrane.com/what-about-cardinal-dolans-confusing-praise-for-president-obama/

      • Art Deco

        I think you mean ‘people in the pews’. The mode among laymen have the bishops they want and the clergy they want.

        • DE-173

          Yes.

      • TERRY

        Agreed. I have a friend who is MUCH smarter than I am and I have been trying to convert him to the faith (without any success so far) and he has stated on more than one occasion that reform in the Catholic Church starts at the bottom and works its way up.

        • DE-173

          Tell him he he has to be in the pews to be part of that reform and the need is great and the time is short.

    • JanCosgrove1945

      “Straight Civilisation”? Never heard that term before. Do expand….

      • publiusnj

        Hint: a civilization that can reproduce itself.

        • niauropsaka

          A civilization that outbreeds and suppresses alternatives may become dominant, and the mores that enabled that dominance may become its “morality.” Yet that does not mean it is true or good by an objective standard, merely that it is strong.

          Is civilization to be enriched by cutting out (e.g.) Plato, Sappho, & Oscar Wilde as deplorable sexual perverts? Or is it diminished?

          • publiusnj

            So 2000 years of Western STRAIGHT Civilization get collapsed down to “a civilization that outbreeds and suppresses alternatives may become dominant through mores called morality….” in np’s view. Forget its accomplishments such as the preservation of learning despite the barbarian invasions and the Renaissance and the spreading of Western Civilization to the Western Hemisphere and its ever growing adoption throughout Asia and Africa. Np would rather build a civilization on the acccomplishments of a few purported homosexuals.

            As for np’s “objective standard” that finds Western Straight Civilization untrue and bad as compared to the gay civilization she supposes could have existed but for “morality,” it obviously is NOT a standard that considers things like: how long could any “gay civilization” last without professional opposite sex breeders, even in the 21st Century? Prior to the late 20th Century, there was no way to reproduce children without sexual congress between a MALE AND A FEMALE. Even now, as a p. 1, July 6, 2014 NY Times article on surrogacy admitted, “gay reproduction” can only be accomplished by the most complex combination of efforts: not just a male’s sperm and a female’s ovum meeting in some sort of (non-sexual) congress but surrogacy agencies + in-vitro technicians + lawyers + a baby carrying second female (since the Baby M case the hired woman who contributes the egg can’t be trusted also to carry the baby on a hired basis because she might then have maternal feelings and a genetic claim on the child she’s birthing)

            • niauropsaka

              Since when are straights and gays separate civilizations?

              Those Christians who preserved learning in the days when books had to be hand-copied manuscripts, how many of them had children of their own, and how many were celibate monks? And yet, still part of the same civilization.

              In fact, St. Paul praised celibacy in the servants of the church; it is good that a bishop’s interests not be divided between his flock and his family.

              We don’t all have to be child-bearing, whether “gay,” “straight,” or chastely celibate. And yet all of us are part of the same civilization.

              You don’t seem to understand the Catholic tradition if you think we must all be in fertile heterosexual marriages. That sounds more like a Mormon, actually.

              • publiusnj

                I don’t understand the Catholic Tradition? Bosh. Not worth further refutation.

                Until the last six to ten years, Western Civilization was a straight civilization. As you yourself noted, that civilization “suppressed alternatives” namely homosexual behavior. Up until forty or fifty years ago, moreover, it also had “mores” designed to force men who wanted to have sexual congress with women to marry them first and to stay married to them for life. Even in death, the old straight civilization ensured some protection for women and children with its laws of intestacy and the spousal share (a descendant of the old laws of dower, etc. That not only ensured the propagation of the race, it also ensured a level of protection for women and children that is quickly going by the boards. Of course, politicians want women to have fewer alternatives to dependence on the state.

                Object lessons in just how far we are getting removed from the old civilization comes up most nights on the Local News. If a young boy is murdered either by the cops or by someone else, the family of the boy is often interviewed. The dead boy had one last name (what his mother might call her “baby daddy’s name”); his mother has a different last name and siblings might have still other last names. Why even bother with “patronymics” if families are not populated with fathers any more and different baby daddies make different membaers of the family? Of course, what name would a mother-headed family go with? Her father’s name? Why not her mother’s.

                We had a straight civilization until recently but it is going away, as even that erstwhile proponent of moral straightness, the Boy Scouts attests by its recent actions.

                • niauropsaka

                  Wow, however did the celibate holy orders survive without having children themselves?

                  It’s not a question of a straight culture or a gay culture. The same culture includes both. Now, if some set of homosexual behaviors are condemned as sin, that affects and narrows the culture. That may be good or bad; feel free to argue reasonably why it’s bad.

                  But it’s not like people will stop having children just because there’s toleration of homosexuality in secular law. You embarrass yourself to even try that nonsense with me.

                  • publiusnj

                    We don’t really have a disagreement if your position is that condemning homosexual behaviors as wrong is good. That is what you said, but from everything else you are writing, I don’t think that is what you mean. Please let me know whether you think society should or should not condemn homosexual behaviors as sin and why.

                    Also: stop with mere ad hominems like “you embarrass yourself to even try that nonsense with me.”

          • arensb

            Without the work of Alan Turing, we might not be using computers to debate gay people’s contributions.

    • The Truth

      In the end times people will be easily offended. The Bible also states that they will kill us and think they are doing right. When Christ was being crucified He asked God the Father to forgive them for they know not what they do. I believe many people truly believe they are doing right by supporting “rights” for people. If we are a secular society, our laws are not based on christian principle.s. Obama when elected said he would fundamentally change the USA. He has. So has his “flock.” They have driven God out of the public sector. If we are not all CREATED equal, the socialists believe it’s up to them to make us “equal.” But they have a different view of what equality is. They look at equality superficially. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that homosexual sex is not “equal” to heterosexual sex. You don’t have to believe in God to see that. I can’t see the left’s agenda being turned back. Our children are taught we are a secular country. All religions and beliefs are “equal”. We are what we are because we were born that way and we can’t change what we are. Christianity accepts all homosexuals just as it accepts all sinners. What we can’t accept is making sin acceptable. Love the sinner hate the sin. Liberals are casting out sin, by making it acceptable. If we don’t call anything sinful then there is no sin. If there is no sin there is no guilt. If there is no guilt there is no crime. no crime no punishment, no JUDGEMENT. Ever hear the words guilt, shame or embarrass anymore? They no longer exist. Civilization is walking backwards thinking it’s progressing. It’s really hilarious until you realize the ramifications.

  • russell snow

    Voegelin’s little book: Science, Politics, and Gnosticism explains the totalitarian mind very well. We are confronted with a Gnostic understanding of reality embraced by the cultural and intellectual elites, whose understanding of reality has been infused in our culture for the past several decades. Fortunately, it is inherently self destructive. A great deal of damage has been done to our cultural and civilization, but the forces of regeneration are all around us. I am always haunted by our Lord’s question: “will the Son of Man find any faith when he returns to earth.” Meanwhile, while we are waiting, we must do our best to not simply to preserve, but to work to strengthen and spread the City of God, the Mystical Body of Christ, as best we can, by affirming the moral truths of our faith and avoiding fruitless dialogues with those who seem to be under the influence of the evil one.

  • fredx2

    Gay marriage proponents simply cannot let the debate rest on reason. The cannot, because in very many cases, the rationales they present would apply with equal force to pedophiles, or to polygamy, or to some other socially undesirable condition. Therefore they cannot rest their case on reason, because if they win, so do those other undesirable groups.
    So, they have to switch their attack and rely solely on social shaming as their main tactic. They think if they can get the media to howl at people every time they say anything they don’t like, then they can sidestep thought and debate and just get their way by bullying. Ask Brandon Eich.
    Josh Barro is simply an example of this. He claims that it is beyond the pale for someone to think it is wrong for a child to grow up and never know what it means to have a mother.

    He believes someone who focuses on the rights of the child is a horrible bigot. He also seems to believe that no one may ever have their own opinions about sexual behavior. After all that is what gayness is – it is sexual behavior. Of course everyone can decide for themselves whether putting things in the wrong orifice is an essentially demeaning behavior or not. To say that no one may judge sexual behavior any more is ridiculous on its face.

    • DE-173

      “Gay marriage proponents simply cannot let the debate rest on reason. ”

      Because it’s not reasonable, therefore it must be sustained on emotion and ferocity. No dissent can be alllowed, because any diisent would expose it as a counterfeit.

      • Objectivetruth

        Hence, the fallback position by the pro gay lobby to hamstring the person trying to use reason, logic and truth to call them a “homophobe.”

        • DE-173

          Precisely.

        • Guest

          When an argument cannot withstand intellectual or philosophical scrutiny the default position is, first, to redefine words, and second, to call names. That alone should be a flashing and blaring signal that a particular argument is fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned. But modern “thinkers” persist with these fatally flawed arguments as if they are the height of evolved intellectualism, and they ignore, dismiss, mock and reject out of hand reasoned and principled arguments, for the simple reason that they’ve become blind to right reason and first principles. And they are marching forward and appear to be winning, because the very people who have debased argumentation now control the terms of the debate.

    • likwidnyte

      wait, so people still like to lump LGBT rights with in the same category of pedophiles, polygamists and other socially undesirable conditions? That’s still a thing? Being gay is considered a socially undesirable condition? It’s a condition? It’s undesirable? Is there really no better argument you can come up with other than that?

      You are part of a group of people who demand respect for your opinions on LGBT individuals, but your opinions dehumanize those individuals. At the root of your opinion is disrespect for LGBT as human beings. You consider gay to be a socially undesirable condition. Gayness is not a sexual behavior, otherwise the antithesis would be true and you would also just be reduced to a sexual behavior.

      Your response is your objection to being treated differently. You are different. We’re all different. But we should all be treated with respect. We should treat everyone as a human being not an “undesirable condition” …a skin rash is an undesirable condition. Ignorance is an undesirable condition.

      • Guest

        Not all differences are equal or good. Defining oneself by deviant desires is not some mere incidental matter.

        • likwidnyte

          but do “deviant desires” stop at just sex? Is sex really “deviant”? In my opinion being overtly judgmental is deviant. In my opinion being ignorant is deviant. Is deviance subjective or collective? Is the decision that something is deviant subjective or collective? Is the answer to either of those questions subjective or collective?

          It’s only non-LGBT community who defines LGBT persons by their sexuality. Are you defined by your sexuality? Is your sexuality you or is your sexuality just a part of you? If LGBT are defined by their sexuality then again, the anthesis must be true, you are also defined by your sexuality.

          • Objectivetruth

            Deviant;”noun
            a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.

            I would argue that ignorant” or “overtly judgmental” do not fit the definition of “deviant.”

          • Guest

            Such confusion. First, no one said deviant desires are confined to deviant sex. But, that is what at issue here so why the jamming and deflection?

            Is this objective or subjective? Obviously, it is objective because such deviant desires are self evidently contrary to nature. This is known from reason, biology, history, and pretty much every other area of life.

            As for defining oneself by deviant desires it is only “gays” who do such things. Which other groups label themselves by their erotic desires?

            • likwidnyte

              Heterosexual individuals define themselves as heterosexual.

              Your justification of objectivity is flawed. I’m sure you can google other species that have same-sex relationships, thus poking holes in your biology aspect of objectivity. You can look at the history of the Greeks and see homosexuality going that far back, I’m sure farther, therefore poking holes in your history aspect of objectivity. Reason is inherently subjective. “Every other area of life” is so vague that it can only be a subjective aspect to your explanation of objectivity.

              • WW

                Normal people do not define themselves by their sexual desires or acts. Normal heterosexuals do not do that at all. They understand the nature of sexuality, but do not throw parades about it. Only “gays” do such things.

                You have to go back to an ancient pagan culture to “prove” acting wrongly is common. That was silly.

                If reason is subjective then there is no truth and that is exactly what the “gays” want everyone to think.

              • Asmondius

                ‘Heterosexual individuals define themselves as heterosexual.’

                No, they don’t, since they are the norm.

                Using the behavior of lower species to justify certain types of human behavior seems like a loser.

                The only open homosexual activity accepted in Greek society was pederasty. Is this what you are rooting for?

          • Paul

            No, deviant desires has many aspects as you well know. Sex is only deviant when it does nothing for humanity and the human gene pool.
            Yes, being ignorant is deviant. Are you deviant yourself ? Deviancy is a matter for God to decide, thus He is the foundation of our faith, reason and logic . Devinacy is neither subjective or collective.
            No, the LGBT community does define themselves by their sexuality by constantly promoting & politicizing their agenda and always claiming to be the victims of society.
            As said, we are all humans but not every aspect of our human behaviors are acceptable (to God). Yes, my sexuality is defined as being heterosexual but, more importantly, it has to conform to God’s wishes. It is the totality of my being that makes me human, as intended by God, which makes me worthy of society’s highest aspirations.

          • DE-173

            In my opinion being ignorant is deviant.
            Having demonstrated manifest ignorance….

          • ForChristAlone

            lik, It would be helpful if you studied more about the natural law. You might begin with “What You Can’t Not Know” by J. Budziszewski. Then you can return here to discuss this very important natural law issue. But before then you are ill-equipped to understand what those on these pages who have been educated in the natural law already know. God bless you

          • Asmondius

            They define themselves.

      • Fred

        Don’t insult with claims that gayness has no connection to unnatural sex, that is totally absurd. There are many deviant attractions of which gayness is just one. True, we should love and pray for their conversion and salvation as well, but not to revel in celebration of the sin either. I know more want to see a parade celebrating adultery, or any of the others you mentioned. I presume you are aware the gay and pedophile movement were one and the same for decades until the gay mafia realized one day they would not ever gain broad acceptance with their partner so separated.

        • JanCosgrove1945

          Unnatural …. a term which begs the question. If the term “normal” was used to denote majority preference then, provided one is careful, ‘abnormal’ might be a definition. But looking at ‘natural’ there is no case to answer that being gay is ‘unnatural’. The majority may not be so, but research and experience show that being gay is part of the spectrum of natural behaviours. It extends into the rest of the mammal order, birds even.

          The use of the term by those who do not like the idea of gay relationships is pure prejudice. Akin to the ‘enemy of the state’ epithet used in authoritarian regimes. Labelling, scape-goating, used to whip up public moral panic.

          As for what Jesus said, he didn’t unless the 3 classes of eunuchs contain a definition of gay:

          “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

          “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

          “But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

          “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

          (Matthew 9.9 ff)

          I have read that the term used for effeminacy was the same as for those born eunuchs in the medical sense, Certainly we know Jesus did not condemn the woman accused of adultery, he enjoined her to sin no more. Did he recognise that such people existed then?

          • Objectivetruth

            “As for what Jesus said, he didn’t unless the 3 classes of eunuchs contain a definition of gay”

            Are you claiming an authority to interpret scripture correctly, without error? The Catholic Church who put together the canon of scripture and has authority over it, would disagree greatly with your interpretation of Matthew.

            • Asmondius

              What’s the difference between a homosexual eunuch and a heterosexual eunuch – better curtains?

          • Objectivetruth

            Here Jan, you will find this helpful. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You are misinterpreting what Christ meant by “eunuchs” in Matthew:

            “1618 Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social.113 From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming.114 Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

            “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”115
            1619 Virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is an unfolding of baptismal grace, a powerful sign of the supremacy of the bond with Christ and of the ardent expectation of his return, a sign which also recalls that marriage is a reality of this present age which is passing away.116

            1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will.117 Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118 and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:

            Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.119”

          • ForChristAlone

            Jan, It would be helpful if you studied more about the natural law. You might begin with “What You Can’t Not Know” by J. Budziszewski. Then you can return here to discuss this very important natural law issue. But before then you are ill-equipped to understand what those on these pages who have been educated in the natural law already know. God bless you

          • WW

            You start with a false premise. First, you must grasp what is natural and what is unnatural. This is not about statistics or social science. This is about man’s true nature.

          • DE-173

            “The use of the term by those who do not like the idea of gay relationships is pure prejudice.”

            I object to anything that is dangerous and unproductive.

            • Asmondius

              The use of the term ‘gay’ in itself must then be prejudicial.

          • Asmondius

            There are no homosexual species. Homosexuality is anathema to evolution. Hence it is correct to term homosexuality ‘unnatural’.

            But thanks, you have just illustrated exactly the same sort of emotional doublespeak the article refers to.

        • Asmondius

          Man-boy organizations marched in Pride parades right up into the 90’s until they became an inconvenience for the movement.

      • Paul

        Homosexuality is a condition, as yet there is no such thing as homosexual gene. Thus homosuality is conditioned by culture and nurture. It is undesirable for many reasons, being unnatural is the least. Homosexuality is a choice which does nothing for the human gene pool, and moreover homosexual couples can not have children. This puts a great strain on society and the general populace as homosexuals reach retirement age they become dependent on the younger generations to support them (think “tax”).
        As Christians we do not seek to dehumanize or disrespect sinners , for we are all sinners, however we must object to the sin – and homosexuality is a sin.
        Homosexuality is a sexual behavior – just as incest, pedophilia, sex with animals & necrophilia etc . As said, these forms of sexuality are anti society since they do nothing for the human gene pool.
        We should treat people with respect, not just because they are human or that they are different, but because they are morally righteous. Furthermore We can respect people but this does not mean we must respect every aspect of their lifestyles. Would you respect an incest or a pedophile etc … ? These too are different and also human.

        • likwidnyte

          You do realize that Social Security is an actual tax that the younger generations pay into for benefit of those at the age of retirement? That’s regardless if sexuality…

          If the only point of sexuality (any sexuality) is to further the gene pool then do you have the same criticisms for heterosexual individuals who either choose not to have children or physically cannot have children? Or do you reserve such judgement for only homosexuals?

          Realize that if homosexuality is a choice than the opposite is also true. Heterosexuality is a choice. Do you recall the moment you chose to be heterosexual? If so I guess that means there was an equal chance you could have chosen to be gay? It would be no different than choosing the black shirt over the white shirt. You had the capability of wearing either one, but you chose a specific one.

          • Objectivetruth

            “Realize that if homosexuality is a choice than the opposite is also true. Heterosexuality is a choice.”

            Incorrect. You are attempting to construct a false syllogism.

          • ForChristAlone

            no homo”sex”uality is a burden that some must carry…it requires one to live chastely given the constraints of this burden in order to be in accord with the natural law.

          • Asmondius

            Heterosexuality is the norm for all mammals, hence it does not require a ‘choice’. There are two complementary sexes in humanity.

            Heterosexual relationships are always open to life, homosexual relationships are always closed.

        • mitch64

          Taxes are not a good argument here. Most gays don’t have children, yet they pay the same taxes (actually in some cases more as they don’t get the tax breaks married couples do..) including property taxes, yet they don’t have children to use up the resources, (i.e. schools, parks, etc.) I know my Chicago suburb should actively recruit gay people without children to help bring in the tax revenues without the expenses.

          And wasnt this topic supposed to be about the lack of cordial and thoughtful debate not a debate on gay rights?

      • DE-173

        “Ignorance is an undesirable condition.”
        Do tell.

      • Chris Cloutier

        Leviticus 20:13 God says to Moses-“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”

        • likwidnyte

          I assume this means you live your life by Levitican law? You’re not just choosing this one to point out?

          • Chris Cloutier

            As regards this issue yes, otherwise no, as I am not Jewish, but was wondering what God thinks about it, as He is the Creator. So I grabbed my Bible and looked it up. I am pointing it out, as no one else seems to have mentioned it. It is a very unambiguous statement.

            • likwidnyte

              Cool, so you fall into the “choosers and pickers” category as you’re choosing and picking what parts you subscribe to in order to support your opinions. It’s perhaps the weakest of all arguments against homosexuality on this page.

              The fact that you openly admit to only subscribing to laws that suit your purpose only makes it worse.

              This is precisely why people feel that anti-gay religious zealots are nothing more than run-of-the-mill bigots.

              • Chris Cloutier

                You are certainly reading a lot into my pointing out what God says about it in the Bible. I don’t think that I could assume that much about someone I don’t know.

              • ForChristAlone

                we just want for your happiness and know that homo”sex”uality will not get you there

              • WW

                Of course, the relativists never read the bible correctly. They take a facile approach that allows them to twist words and use them as propaganda.

                The OT spoke of the moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law. Not all are binding in the same way. So, it is not picking and choosing but being authentic and critically thinking.

              • DE-173

                “This is precisely why people FEEL”

                Right on cue, we see have a prima facia case of the leftwing, secularist, collectivist, statist viewpoint being a product of emotion, not reason.

              • Asmondius

                er, Leviticus is a large set of books with several different purposes. Please point out which dictates, specifically concerning human sexual behavior, people are ‘picking and choosing’.

              • Asmondius

                And there’s that ‘bigot’ word.

                Name-calling is always the final justification for homosexual behavior.

          • ForChristAlone

            lik…, It would be helpful if you studied more about the natural law. You might begin with “What You Can’t Not Know” by J. Budziszewski. Then you can return here to discuss this very important natural law issue. But before then you are ill-equipped to understand what those on these pages who have been educated in the natural law already know. God bless you

          • WW

            I assume it means he lives by the eternal moral law not OT ceremonial laws that no longer apply.

          • Asmondius

            This is a direct command from God regarding human moral behavior, it is not a human ‘law’.

      • Asmondius

        ‘Gayness is not a sexual behavior,’

        CDC statistics support the opposite view.

    • John Rockson

      Do you honestly believe the court cases where marriage bans are constantly being overturned are all being decided on feelings?

      The arguments you’re making here lost, very badly, in Michigan when they were literally but on trial. But there’s no research to back up such claims. What kind of reason based argument can’t back up its assertions with proven facts?

      • DE-173

        “Do you honestly believe the court cases where marriage bans are constantly being overturned are all being decided on feelings?”

        No, ideology.

        • ForChristAlone

          Ideology based often on cheap sentimentality and politics – the lust to wield power over others.

          • DE-173

            Libido dominandi strikes again!

      • Asmondius

        Courts have made slavery, abortion, and other errors legal in the past. No difference here.

    • JanCosgrove1945

      Maybe polygamy or even polyandry. Not paedophilia because that cannot be consenting adults by definition. It is not a “marriage of equals”. Likewise bestiality.

      • WW

        Consent is simply a legal device that can be changed and modified at will.

      • Asmondius

        Since two men are not equal to a man and a woman, that requirement has already lapsed,

    • The Truth

      If homosexuals are” born that way” and have no control over it, how then can we make pedophile’s culpable for something they can’t control? If you follow the “logic” they were also “born that way” and like homosexuals can’t reason their way to be able to control themselves. Sex can be as addictive as any other sin. Sin enslaves people without them even knowing it.

    • Sven2547

      Gay marriage proponents simply cannot let the debate rest on reason.

      Okay, let’s hear the non-emotional, reason-based, Constitutionally-justifiable reason to ban same-sex marriage. Go.

  • Guest

    “For the ideologue, the humility of a thinker attempting to live in the
    deep truth of existence is an affront, and they were not so much to be
    disputed within the great nexus of reality but destroyed. Stamped out.
    No wonder, then, that ideologues were behind so much of the great moral
    horrors of political violence of the twentieth century, for they used a
    boot rather than a syllogism to convince.”

    That is what Pope Benedict termed the dictatorship of relativism. The moral relativist is rigid and intolerant. They have to be that way as that is the result of viewing reality in such a deformed manner.

    • The Truth

      When you know the truth you must close your mind to all else. After all if you know the truth you must keep lies out. That’s the irony of the left, the so called open minded ones. They are open minded to every thing but the truth!

  • montanajack1948

    Josh Barro did himself no favors in his exchanges with Ryan Anderson. Nevertheless, before rushing to judgment regarding Barro’s intractably “ideological” mindset, one might at least to pause to consider that Mr. Barro is himself a gay man, and that the argument strikes a very personal chord for him. That does not excuse his incivility, but it helps explain it. As for Voegelin’s claim that things took a wrong turn 500 years ago, I would refer you to any of the early Church councils in which various controversies–Arianism, Pelagianism, the Trinity, etc.–were resolved: rancor and invective, not calm and rational discourse, held sway. Dissenters back then were banished, excommunicated, and sometimes killed; books were burned in order that “heresies” might be stamped out. Was Josh Barro angry and even uncivil? Yes. Is that anything new under the sun? No.

    • Art Deco

      Mr. Barro is himself a gay man, and that the argument strikes a very personal chord for him.

      That’s the whole point. His self-concept is such that he thinks and speaks in a fundamentally childish manner. He’s nearly 30 years old and he fancies it outrageous that he does not have the good opinion of others.

      • montanajack1948

        Okay, then. I had thought we might want to give Mr. Barro some leeway here–maybe along the lines of “Judge not”–but apparently not.

        • Guest

          Judge not? No one is judging his soul, only his evil words.

          • montanajack1948

            And his “self-concept,” let’s not forget. But I get it–we’re only hating the sin (“his evil words”) while lavishing love (can’t you just feel it?) upon the sinner.

            • Guest

              No, that is mere postmodern sentimentalism. His words are evil and do much evil. His person deserves respect but not smarmy and false
              “Luv” that the relativists want.

              • montanajack1948

                “Hate the sin but love the sinner” is “mere postmodern sentimentalism”? Weren’t we originally talking about Josh Barro’s lack of civility? Pot/kettle/black much?

                • Guest

                  Why play games? Hate the sin love the sinner means defining love in an authentic way, not nihilism.

                  • montanajack1948

                    I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ll just note that this post/thread on “civility” and “respect” has so far brought out terms like “evil,” “smarmy,” “nihilism,” and “childish”. If that’s either “civility” or evidence of anything like “authentic love,” I’ll eat my Bible.

                    • WW

                      Those terms describe the situation quite well. The problem is not lack of true love. The problem is a false love that you seem to perpetrate here.

                    • montanajack1948

                      I’m going to do us all a favor and stop perpetrating false love, at least on this thread. It amazes me that not one commenter here, aside from me, is willing to cut Josh Barro the least bit of slack. Now, please excuse me while I proceed with eating my Bible.

                    • Art Deco

                      I am not his mother.

                      He’s a child of the haut bourgeoise, a salaried employee of a prestigious enterprise (albeit prestigious only within certain subcultures and in a declining industry), gifted by his employers with a public platform, and notable for bad attitudes and muddled thinking derived from his bad attitude. This is not the way a prudent and virtuous man wants his 30 year old son to think and feel and he does no one any good for a that.

                      What sort of ‘slack’ should I cut him and why?

                    • montanajack1948

                      None. No slack at all should be cut for such a creature, or for any sore or middling creature at all. We must be cruel only to be kind. Neither you nor I are Josh Barro’s mother, not to mention his prudent and virtuous father. I get it, honest. Everyone now please leave me alone so I can get back to eating my Bible; right now, I’m having trouble digesting the Sermon on the Mount.

                    • Guest

                      Blessed are those who spread propaganda? Blessed are those who teach others to sin? Blessed are those who call love hate?

                    • montanajack1948

                      Well, translations differ…

                    • John200

                      Ha, ha, I give you credit, that’s funny and perfectly placed.

                    • Art Deco

                      Thanks for the evasions and attitudinizing.

                    • montanajack1948

                      You are welcome. I do what I can. Since you made your position quite clear–you do not like Josh Barro and do not think he should be given any slack–what exactly did you expect from me? Was there one single thing I could have written that would have changed your mind? I have repeatedly tried to surrender on this thread, but everyone (including you) wants the last word–i.e. one last shot at me for having suggested that Josh Barro too is a human being deserving of respect, which is what the whole kerfluffle was about in the first place. You accuse me of “attitudinizing”; I’m certainly guilty of that, but I will in turn accuse you of projection, and then we can both retire to our corners, smugly convinced that we are correct. I am not your mother.

                    • Art Deco

                      What I expect from you is that you state your complaint in specific terms (as in telling someone what is unreasonable about the criticisms they offer of Barro). You’ve refused to do that and instead keep striking poses.

                      Since I am not his employer, it makes little sense to suggest I cut him ‘slack’. That aside, when a thirty year old lapsed banker gifted a public platform speaks like a self-centered and obstreperous adolescent, I do not see any reason not to point that out, and you haven’t provided one (other than you’re just so much more pious and charitable than the rest of us).

                    • Guest

                      Well at least you admit your error.

                    • montanajack1948

                      I do, Admitting error is one of the few things I’m actually good at (along with eating my words), probably because I’ve had so much practice.

                    • Asmondius

                      I suppose you missed the poster throwing out ‘bigot’, etc.

      • DE-173

        ” He’s nearly 30 years old”
        And yet the NYT features his thoughts as though he was some wisened old sage…

  • Makalu

    Great article. The reference to the Natural Law in this article is refreshing. Reference to the Natural Law is rarely seen in the scarce conservative media or in the exhortations of our Catholic Bishops and Cardinals other than Cardinal Burke. The conservative talk show hosts like Bill Bennet never mention anything in reference to the Natural Law; therefore , all of the above so called conservative voices are never going to persuade w/ conviction that homosexuality is destructive since it violates the Natural Law. Cast religion aside, the Natural Law can be a powerful stick worth weilding to stamp out the anti-reasoning mindset; but I forget, sin when embraced erases reason and erodes one’s ability to see truth the more one embraces the sin.
    We need a king, a monarch to set things right, not the mob rule of our present republic.
    PS: Goverment workers are nearing the 50% mark at which point there will be insufficient voters in the private sector to facilitate change. Have a great day America…

    • DE-173

      We need a king, a monarch to set things right, not the mob rule of our present republic.

      Another PHO ignorant of history. And when you coronate Henry Tudor, then what? For thsat matter, how about Chales WSindsor? Or when the mob says “give us Barabbas”, then what?
      Dr. Sowell is right, asking “and then what” is an innoculant against bad ideas.

      • makalu

        I was thinking more of the Holy Roman Empire and also the Habsburgs where the Emperor had the right to veto the papal election. This is the reason Pius Xth was elected rather than a potential Freemason. In addition, Christendom is a Monarchy w/ Christ as King. This reflects the hierarchy of Heaven. You give examples of specific rogue kings and I am refering to the general idea. How about Blessed Charles Habsburg, Loius IX, Ferdinand III, Charlemagne,etc etc. Apparently you are the one ignorant of Hx. It was just a passing thought, but I recently had dinner with the traditionalist priest from Ars, France last week and he and others believe that the monarchy in France could return since there is a growing movement for it in France.

        • DE-173

          “You give examples of specific rogue kings and I am refering to the general idea.”
          Any “general idea” that doesn’t account for rogues is just a fantasy, because rogues outnumber Saints.
          What part of “my Kingdom is not of this earth” do you PHOs lack the ability to understand?

          • makalu

            It is sad that you too must resort to name calling and anger to prove your point. Of course any system has its rogues; however, that does not deny its good. And Christendom is a monarchy (with Christ our King outside of this world, a transcendent kingdom) whether you’re abe to understand this or not.

            • DE-173

              Stop your whining about “name calling”, it’s accurate. Truth cannot be sacrified to a false charity which allows fantasy to be peddled as orthodoxy.

              There is a contingent of people on here that consistently write nonsense, telling the rest of the readers that they are the truly Catholic, uncorrupted by novel influences and will bring us (back) to a world without sin-THAT NEVER EXISTED.

              PHOs are the political and social equivalent of engineers that design machines without considering friction or economists whose models have no transaction costs. It as delusional and destructive an endeavor as those who promote pseudonogamy.

              You have no idea what it was like to live under Charlemagne, you just have this romanticized and sanitized fantasy. You “Camelot” is as real as the one that surrounded JFK, but we know there was sin and depravity then as there is now.

              “And Christendom is a monarchy (with Christ our King outside of this world, a transcendent kingdom) whether you’re abe to understand this or not.”

              The person that doesn’t understand it is you, because you think that a human being, not the Son of God, should command powers only fit for the perfect, which is why he said “my Kingdom is not of this world”. Until the true King comes, I accept no counterfeits.

              • Makalu

                Wow, you are really one uptight guy. And am I talking to a child who likes ships??
                Your understanding of the values of nobility and monarchy are seriously distorted. Pius XII wrote a great book on the value of nobility in society. It should be obvious that nothing is a perfect solution, even the papacy has its rogues, yet the concept is good.

                • DE-173

                  No, I am writing (not talking,do try to keep things straight) to a child who desperately, desperately wants to believe the world can be conformed to and redeemed by his designs, in this case to imbue all power in a single person, and can’t answer sa simple question, “and what if”, when the adult in the room reasons that his childish impulse is fraught with danger.
                  Go away from me, Luther.

            • Assyrian Church of the East

              He resorts to that a lot.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      It was the Catholic philosopher, Miss Anscombe who pointed out the problem with Natural Law arguments in her 1958 paper, Modern Moral Philosophy.

      “In present-day philosophy an explanation is required how an unjust man is a bad man, or an unjust action a bad one; to give such an explanation belongs to ethics; but it cannot even be begun until we are equipped with a sound philosophy of psychology. For the proof that an unjust man is a bad man would require a positive account of justice as a “virtue.” This part of the subject-matter of ethics, is however, completely closed to us until we have an account of what type of characteristic a virtue is – a problem, not of ethics, but of conceptual analysis – and how it relates to the actions in which it is instanced: a matter which I think Aristotle did not succeed in really making clear.”

      I do not believe we have succeeded where Aristotle failed.

  • mitch64

    I agree with much of this article. However, let’s not paint the “pro,” gay marriage side as bearing all the blame on this and not take into account that the unfortunate truth is that “everyone,” involved in this debate and really all debates on the internet engage in this conduct. This very web page frequently has posters shouting down other posters who disagree on this subject as “trolls,” ..homo-“sex,” uals (which I guess trying to make a point about I don’t know what) and of going to hell, other dissenters on other subjects frequently are called “idiots, by the mainstays on this board. The anonymity of the net and the impersonal nature of responding “from a distance,’ adds to this.

    • Art Deco

      I’ve been on mixed sites (e.g. Megan McArdle’s at The Atlantic or the old American Scene and been the token starboard poster at some liberal sites, like Ordinary Times. The worst abuse is pretty unidirectional for what it’s worth. Keep in mind it’s bog standard for the portside (and their libertarian fellow travelers) to regard any dissenting opinion treating their preferred client groups dismissively as an unacceptable outrage.

    • John200

      Homo”sex”ual means that what you do is not sex. And you know it.

      It is masturbation, sometimes mutual, sometimes forced. Its effects are uniformly negative on the homo”sex”ual, the man he is destroying, others who would have benefited if the homo”sex”ual had acted better, and society as a whole which pays the costs which run into the many billions of dollars.

      It is not sex. That reminder causes homo”sex”uals to get very angry when they see the word.

      Nor is calling you a homo”sex”ual equivalent to shouting you down. You can continue commenting.

      I hope you add thinking to commenting, and that you some to see what is wrong with homo”sex”ual activity.

      • ErickMN

        How hilarious that you spend so many hours every day obsessing about the sex lives of other people. That is the very definition of “pathetic”.

        • ForChristAlone

          I looked up the word “pathetic” in the dictionary and that is NOT its definition. Please revise your comment so that it is more accurate.

        • John200

          Dear Erick,
          Oops! No, no, no, I don’t mean it that way. How pathetic that you spend so many hours every day obsessing about the non-sex life of your homo”sex”ual self and all the other nonsex types. That is the very definition of “sub-pathetic”.

          It’s OK, go ahead and try to turn CrisisMag into a trollerie with your drolleries. We shall attend to any sign that you can listen to the truth.

          Until then, we await patiently your next eruption.

          You may await the next burst of truth. Stick around, it won’t be long.

      • mitch64

        I think this is a perfect example of what the article and I was speaking of.

        And yes, most people consider masturbation sex..even the Catholic Church, which calls it a sin as it is non procreative. I for one don’t get angry at the term, I just think its odd and realize its supposed to be an insult, one that doesn’t make that much sense but…

        I too hope you add thinking to your commenting.

        • Guest

          It is a perverted sexual act. That is accurate.

        • John200

          Most people do not define their terms carefully. That is why you get away with telling them masturbation is sex, homo”sex”ual activity is sex, homo”sex”uality is natural and good, the alimentary canal is meant for “sex,” etc. The problem is that your basic assumptions are silly and destructive. But in every day conversation you can tell one of these lies. You are graceless and gauche to do so, but it does not matter so much.

          Here, though, we are in a Roman Catholic forum. Our homo”sex”uals mean to confuse us into going along with perversion. So the silly and destructive lies matter.

          I think before I comment because I expect homo”sex”uals, having perverted the idea of sex, to pervert everything they hear. You do so consistently. Do you ever listen to yourself(ves)?

          • mitch64

            As I said, the Church deems it sexual activity see above, I won’t discuss this topic further with you..your reaction is a bit odd (what is “forced masturbation and who was talking about it?) Perhaps I am missing something?

            How do you know what my assumptions are? I have never said any specific about sex, not to mention the alimentary canal (what the heck are you thinking about again???) Nor do you know what I say in my private life so to call me a lier and that I am “graceless,” and “gauche,” for having apparently having a difference of opinion just strengthens the original statement which somehow set you off on a discussion of sex acts. Both sides take the low road, as you so ably proved for me.

            • John200

              You will discuss it more with me, or with others. The fascination will bring you back until you see through yourself.

              And yes, you are missing something, something about yourself, truth, natural law, and the low road.

              • mitch64

                My friend, the fascination is all yours, you are the one who is constantly bringing up sexual acts. Why is it that the people who say the revile things like homosexual acts, are the ones most fascinated with them? To that I would suggest you watch the clip, if this is what I think it is. It shows people who are struggling that have found peace in the Church (well, that one flaming queen seems to have traded in one addiction for another but hey, its healthier then what he was up to before) which I hope you find. Sit back breathe, relax, take your mind off of sex and sin and realize that God has everything well in hand.

                • John200

                  Long journey. Get started, the first step is crucially important.

  • Guest

    ‘And Barro doesn’t go gently, rejecting
    any notion of “magnanimity” in the dispute over “gay rights.”
    Apparently this was not merely a moment of ill-temper or incautious
    speech so much as an existential commitment to delegitimizing dissent
    and vilifying any who think differently, no matter how serious, calm, or
    sustained their arguments or willingness to dialogue. Those people? “we
    need to stamp them out, ruthlessly.”’

    This is an excellent point. There is a vast difference between folks losing their temper in comment boxes and a true strategy used to silence all objections.

    A big part of this problem is the issue of tone. The “gay” side frequently uses that as a cudgel to deflect the argument away from reason and truth. You can spend more time defending your perceived tone than actually discussing the real issue.

    • John200

      Dear Guest,

      Thank you for the note. First off, I never defend my tone. I said it the way I said it, and I know what I said. And the reader knows it.

      A complaint about “Tone” means the complainer has nothing. As far as the homo”sex”uals arguing about tone, they will lose every single such argument.

      Specifics:
      Homo”sex”uals destroy themselves.
      Homo”sex”uals pretend to “love” the man they are destroying.
      Homo”sex”uals deprive people who would have benefited if the homo”sex”uals had acted better.
      Homo”sex”uals fob the costs of their perversion onto ALL OF US — ie, the body politic. We could easily tell them to pay the expenses attached to their perversions. The amount is in the multiple billions.

      All should lead lives that take them to God. Basting oneself, in preparation for eternal roasting, is somewhat ridiculous.

  • clintoncps

    QUOTE: When Anderson attempts to clarify that he’s really for marriage equality, but that the debate is about the definition of marriage, the rejoinder is ad hominem, with Barro opining that he’s “for equal rights and you’re [Anderson] for policies that disfavor gays and lesbians,” and that he won’t be taken in by “doublespeak” or refinements of argument, however robust the tradition. END QUOTE.

    I totally disagree with Barro’s identification of human beings as actually “being” LGBTQ — an acronym that does not bespeak the refreshing discovery of human sexual potentialities but, rather, serves as a litany of psycho-sexual disorders. However, Barro is correct when he says he won’t be taken in by “doublespeak” or refinements of argument regarding “marriage equality”. That’s because Anderson’s premise is flawed to begin with: arguments in favour of any shade of “marriage equality” that recognizes homosexual relationships as something good and moral as such are false. Homosexual relationships are simply disordered, and trying to reach a compromise — a truce with moral evil — will accomplish nothing at all toward halting (let alone reversing) the continuing sexual dis-orientation of human civilization.

    There is only one premise in regard to homosexuality that can save human civilization from becoming ever more anti-human, and that is to reject the normalization of homosexuality completely and to re-list it in the catalog of psychological disorders, from which it was tragically deleted 40 years ago.

    When (God willing) homosexuality is re-classified as the disorder it has never ceased to be, then people who possess the reason and moral sanity to recognize the essential maleness and femaleness of the human race and the rights of children to be raised by their natural father and mother (or adopted by a father and a mother) will have renewed hope — hope that their brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbours who are obsessed with homosexual fixations and appetites can get the therapy, ministry, and compassion they need to overcome this diabolical assault against the human imagination and the image of God in man. This is where love — true love; redeeming love; the love of God — becomes possible again.

  • Charles Ryder

    This was an encouraging and a thoughtful article. Many thanks.

  • DE-173

    Barro, one of the leaders in the drive to make thought obsolete.

    http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/is-thinking-obsolete-3d75af14e7.html

    And this is where we end up.. only Romney Wordsworth won’t be a librarian, he’ll be a priest or a Bishop…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZymJAsxHbVg

    • Objectivetruth

      Great video, Rod Serling at the end is almost prophetic.

  • david

    Again, I ask all of you to cease and desist using the word “gay”. They are not “happy” they are homosexuals. Please use the proper word. Giving in to the use of a word which the homosexuals have taken prisoner and redefined only helps promote their agenda. The word is homosexual. (When was the last time you heard of anyone being called a “gayphobe”?)

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      I too refuse to give up the word “gay” to sodomites. Poetry is greatly impoverished without the word. More importantly, to hand them this word is to engage in Orwellian Newspeak, where “War” is “Peace”, “Love” is “Hate”, and so on.

      • Objectivetruth

        Shakespeare used the word “gay” quite often. His work would have been sadly and greatly diminished if he were writing in these times, due to the highjacking of such a splendid word by the homosexual activists. Sad, indeed. From Othello:

        “She that was ever fair and never proud,
        Had tongue at will and yet was never loud,
        Never lack’d gold and yet went never gay,
        Fled from her wish and yet said ‘Now I may,’
        She that being anger’d, her revenge being nigh,
        Bade her wrong stay and her displeasure fly.”

    • DE-173

      The word “homophobe” is also a misbegotten neolgism. I don’t fear sameness or uniformity, I object to homosexual behavior.

      • Howard

        Not to mention it conflates all negative reaction into fear, which is wrong. For example, although I find cannibalism disgusting, I am not afraid that I will be eaten by cannibals, nor am I afraid I will turn into a cannibal.

      • ErickMN

        So what? I object to your intolerance. Fortunately, you are on the losing side of the courts, the legislatures, the voting public, and history itself.

        • ForChristAlone

          Sorry to have to inform you but truth is not determined by a majority vote. Truth is independent of man’s opinion.

          • ErickMN

            “Truth” is relative. You just happen to choose yours from a stone-age book of fables.

            • ForChristAlone

              I realize that you are struggling but want you to know you are always welcome here.

            • Objectivetruth

              Didn’t you just say the exact same thing in response to one of my postings? Why are you repeating yourself?

              And I asked you before, explain how “Truth” is relative. Or we’re you just tossing that out there hoping not to be challenged?

              • Asmondius

                Using the Homosexual Playbook.

            • Asmondius

              ‘ “Truth” is relative. ‘

              That’s the prerequisite belief for any wrongdoing. Men and women are complementary and unitive – same sex couples are not. Is science ‘relative’ as well?

        • Objectivetruth

          How is he being intolerant? We hope and pray that all homosexuals come to the Teuths of Jesus Christ found in the Catholic Church, like we’ve found. That’s not intolerance, that’s love.

        • Asmondius

          ‘the courts’ – fallible, and there is till one more appeal.

          ‘the legislatures’ – the great majority passed laws contrary to homosexual unions.

          ‘ the voting public’ – homosexual unions have failed miserably in most public referendums, even in ultra-liberal California.

          ‘history itself’ – open acceptance of homosexual behavior has often been a harbinger of societal decay, not success. There has never been a civilization or nation that placed homosexual unions on an equal footing with traditional marriage.

          I believe you just defeated your very own argument.

        • DE-173

          Oh yes, the courts.. the courts that gave us Plessy v. Ferguson, Buck v. Bell, Korematsu, Kelo, Roe.. and that never reverse course.

      • Asmondius

        To be correct, the term would mean you have an unreasoned fear.

        There is good reason to fear the effect of homosexuality upon or society.

        • DE-173

          Good point.

    • Guest

      I always put “gay” in quotes when referring to deviant ideologies. I agree using their terms helps deform consciences.

    • ErickMN

      Every dictionary under the sun define “gay” as also meaning people who are attracted to members of the same sex. If you have trouble grasping reality, talke to a therapist. Don’t advertise your ignorance here.

      • ForChristAlone

        The terms is homosexual, not gay.

        • ErickMN

          Every dictionary in the word calls your comment garbage.

          • ForChristAlone

            Minnesota Man, I realize that you are struggling but want you to know you are always welcome here.

            • Objectivetruth

              He is most welcome. I hope he finds a home here, and in the Church.

              • ForChristAlone

                Yes. I think many of us have had the experience of struggling with the truth and running from God. But God never ceases to hound us with his love. Then we stopped runing and God “caught” us. What a wonderful thing to have happened

          • Asmondius

            We have the Bible, you have a dictionary.

      • Asmondius

        The dictionary also says that orange is a color – I guess I should never eat one.

      • Guest

        Dictionaries define what is popular not necessarily what is true.

        • ErickMN

          Great! So go ahead and send a whiny email to all of the dictionary publishers. I’m sure they could use the laugh.

          • Guest

            Perhaps they are as credulous as are.

          • Therese

            ErickMN: As I read through all of these comments, I was struck by the willingness of the posters to provide facts in a charitable, reasonable way – over and over again. Your comments, however, speak to the observation that people resort to feelings and ad hominem attacks when there is no reasonable argument.

            • ErickMN

              You mean “facts” like “gay” is not a commonly used term for homosexual people, and that gay people will bring the downfall of civilzation? Do you have any concept whatsoever as to what a “fact” is? Figure that out, and then come back and talk to me.

              • Therese

                You continue to support my point.

  • Art Deco

    Barro’s a business journalist and once employed by Wells Fargo. Journalism is shot through with people who make manifest the remark of Thomas Sowell that intelligence and articulateness are often confounded. Barro’s likely not one. He’s the son of a prominent professor, and has some bad attitudes which may derive from that.

    More saliently, though, Barro is a homosexual. His disposition in this matter is not surprising (but is self-indicting).

  • cestusdei

    We are going to see more attempts to silence anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda.

    • Art Deco

      You know, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent. Not much to do but to state your position and tell them to buzz off when they start beating on their high chairs.

      What we need to worry about is employment discrimination law, as this will be used as a wedge against anyone taking exception to the Regime.

    • Guest

      And the usual suspects swarm the comment boxes here on cue to prove you correct.

    • Asmondius

      What we have seen thus far is persecution of self-employed individuals in the service industry and litigation by practicing homosexuals who were cashiered from positions in Catholic institutions or who presented their children for admission to Catholic schools (some successful, some not). We have also seen publicity and petition campaigns by practicing homosexuals who were released from ministerial positions within the Church. The largely pederast scandal in the Church was conveniently wallpapered over as ‘pedophilia’. Speaking out against homosexuality is currently not wise for career-conscious Federal employees (including the military) and many corporate employees. The Church in America had had to close some adoption agencies. The two great challenges to the Church will arise from nondiscrimination laws and children who are in homosexual households.

  • FosseyRichard

    Thanks for this story. We should always point out uncivil speech that comes from such leading publications as the New York Times. Mr. Barro needs to know that a lot of reasonable people find his language unacceptable.

    • DE-173

      I’m sure that he would, ipso facto, infer from the mere occurence of objecting to his language, one would be unreasonable and unworthy.

  • Mike

    The idea that this article itself is civil is nonsense.

    Discrimination is not civil. This should be plainly obvious. Fighting vehemently against it is indeed the civil thing to do.

    • Guest

      Just discrimination is a matter of justice. “Gay marriage” is a fiction.

      • ErickMN

        In nearly 20 states, DC and a growing list of foreign countries, it does indeed exist. If you have trouble grasping reality, talk to a therapist. Don’t advertise that here.

        • ForChristAlone

          Please do not try to suppress views different from your own. That’s no way to arrive at the truth.

          • ErickMN

            You can hold any bizarre views you want. And I can challenge them any way I want. Don’t like it? Find another hobby.

            • ForChristAlone

              Erika, my son, I realize that you are struggling but want you to know you are always welcome here.

        • Guest

          No it is a fiction. The State can claim square circles exist but they never will.

    • Paul

      So should one not discriminate against incest, pedophilia, sex with animals or necrophilia ? After all they too are just other forms of love, sexual orientations or sexual preferrences ? As Christians we are called to discriminate against sin but not the sinner.

      • ErickMN

        What part of “consenting adults” don’t you understand? Please think before you post.

        • ForChristAlone

          People who are adults can consent to unnatural acts. You are accurate here. It’s been going on for a long, long time. But in the beginning it was not so.

          • ErickMN

            I’m really not interested in hearing about your bizarre obsession with the sex lives of other people. Ish.

            • Art Deco

              We’re obsessed? These ‘other people’ have insisted, for about four decades now and with increasing frequency, on making a public point of it (and of insisting on certain legal privileges to be derived from it).

            • ForChristAlone

              So, again, I say to you: I realize that you are struggling but want you to know you are always welcome here.

            • Asmondius

              Who organizes the G-string parades?

        • Asmondius

          Prostitution?

    • ForChristAlone

      Mike, it would be helpful if you studied more about the natural law. You might begin with “What You Can’t Not Know” by J. Budziszewski. Then you can return here to discuss this very important natural law issue. But before then you are ill-equipped to understand what those on these pages who have been educated in the natural law already know. God bless you

  • John Rockson

    What a stirring defense of smarm. Well done.

  • Dave Derossett

    I followed the enitire discussion as it happened, and it was double speak, whether you agree or disagree with the topic. The last vestige of a ship adrift for the rocks.

  • mingxin

    Ha, you’re calling for him to be civil and yet the article starts off with a caricature of Hitler set against a gay pride flag? Indeed, how civil! What’s next? Bin Laden in front of an American flag or slice of apple pie? How hypocritical.

    You want someone to be sensitive, coddle you and give you special treatment because of your bigoted beliefs? Fine, but then come out and say so.

    Gay people are real, are roughly 10% of the population, pay taxes and want equality. Those working against people who want political equality tend to lose over time. See: racism, sexism, etc

    • Guest

      Unequals must be treated unequally as a matter of justice. We do not treat pathology as health.

      • mingxin

        You’re one of those “we’ve decided it’s unnatural even though it exists and is therefore natural” folks. Huh.

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentrism

        Ah, science. It’s not a religion, but people treat it like it is…

        • Guest

          That something exists does not make it natural as in consistent with man’s nature or natural end. Cancer exists in nature too.

          I had hope we had moved beyond the facile and immature understanding of natural.

          • mingxin

            Fun thought exercise!

            So, enlighten everyone: what exactly is unnatural about being gay?

            Is makeup natural? How about clothing? Space flight? Staying up late well past sundown is surely fighting against man’s nature?

            The problem with the line of thought is: who gets to decide what is natural?

            For that matter: most men, whether they admit it or not, are not hardwired naturally for monogamy. Yet we’ve chosen to recognize marriage as a stable environment for children and for two people to grow old together.

            It’s not really that natural and yet most people chose to marry at some point in their life.

            • Guest

              Is this how relativists reason? As I said natural refers to consistent with man’s authentic nature. That something exists in the world is not evidence it is good for man.

              Who get’s to decide? What silly question. Is murder “natural”? Is arson “natural”? We know from self evidence, right reason, biology, history, and logic that same sex behavior is absolutely contrary to nature. It is not in the same category as the others things you mention and to even include such things reveals a very deficient grasp of reality.

              • mingxin

                I’m not a relativist. But quoting a source and then saying you know “the one true way” is about as flat earth as you can be.

            • Objectivetruth

              Here ya go, this says it better than I can. Or google “homosexuality natural law Catholic teaching”

              Enjoy!:

              http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/05/24/natural-law-and-homosexuality-made-simple/

            • ForChristAlone

              It would be helpful if you studied more about the natural law. You might begin with “What You Can’t Not Know” by J. Budziszewski. Then you can return here to discuss this very important natural law issue. But before then you are ill-equipped to understand what those on these pages who have been educated in the natural law already know. God bless you

              • mingxin

                Ha. Did I sneeze? God bless you. So you quote one source and be done with it? Oh yea, guess that works with another Book too. You are ill-equipped to see that you wouldn’t recognize Jesus if you met him today. For that, I feel truly sorry you.

            • Asmondius

              ‘Is makeup natural? How about clothing? Space flight? Staying up late well past sundown is surely fighting against man’s nature?’

              Ah, so homosexuality IS a conscious convention.

        • Objectivetruth

          Trying to equate the controversy between the Church and the heliocentric theories of the day and the natural law and homosexual acts is, at best, not even a stretch. Do you have an understanding of what the “natural law” is?

        • Asmondius

          Science finds no homosexual species.

      • ErickMN

        Every major medical, psychological and psychiatric organization in the western world calls your comment garbage, and you a liar.

        • ForChristAlone

          There is always room for error. Take, for example, most of what you write.

          • ErickMN

            Yes, the whole world is wrong, and you are right. Hilarious! Perhaps you should see one of those professionals.

            • ForChristAlone

              Please Erika, my friend, I realize that you are struggling but want you to know you are always welcome here.

              • ErickMN

                I am not your friend, hater. Yuck.

                • ForChristAlone

                  Yes, but I am your brother…your friend.

        • Guest

          No, propagandists and relativists may think that erroneously. But, that does not change the truth.

        • Asmondius

          Untrue.

      • mingxin

        Who has decided it’s a disease?

    • ForChristAlone

      I pray that, if you are saddled with same sex attraction, that you will live a life marked by chastity. You will find the happiness you are looking for, and God, who has loved you all along, as well.

    • Asmondius

      ‘Gay people are real, are roughly 10% of the population….’

      Sorry, the CDC just placed them as less than 3%.

      Sorry again, homosexuality is neither a race or a sex.

      • mitch64

        Those are the people that identify as gay. That doesn’t include gay or bisexual men who are married and cheat on their poor wives, or don’t consider themselves gay for whatever reason. And really, the percentage doesn’t count if it was 1 percent or 25 percent, in our country, the majority cannot override the basic civil rights of the minority…(now if you want to argue if marriage is a civil right that is fine, and an entirely different topic.)

        • Asmondius

          When a small minority dictates to the majority, that is aristocracy – or worse.

          • mitch64

            No one is dictating to anyone. Quite the opposite could be said, as you are trying to dictate to a minority if they can have legal protections through marriage. As Jefferson said, “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will
            of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful,
            must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which
            equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

            And, I might add the majority of the population is quickly supporting gay marriage, what will your argument be then? Or, lets say, in the future that Muslims are the majority here…would that be reasonable that they can take your minority rights away?

            • Asmondius

              You would have much more to fear from a Muslim majority than I would.

  • Joshua Holmes

    Anderson got more respect than he deserved.

    • Objectivetruth

      In what way?

  • David

    The Bishops call Josh Barro, and all of us gay people, “intrinsically disordered”. You do your best to deny us equal rights. You deny the very existence of our families. You take away our children. You call us pedophiles. You put us in institutions. Even today you still send us to quacks who try to turn us straight by electrocuting our genitals while making us watch gay porn.

    But we’re the rude ones if we dare use the word “bigot”? Okay, in that case we’re rude. What else are we supposed to call bigots? Face it, y’all are unapologetic bigots whom historians will speak of far more rudely than we do.

    • Guest

      Before asserting such propaganda it would serve you better to actually learn what the Church teaches. You obviously have no idea.

    • THINK about it!

      Get over yourself. Unfortunately, your ilk has infiltrated our government and schools and so your recruitment avenues are at an all=time high. You (the ‘gay’ mafia of “Safe schools”) confuses, distorts and entraps children into thinking they are made for something less than man or woman.

      Yes, it’s harsh language. But when you close your eyes tonight, when you lay down to sleep, talk to God your creator and ask HIM if He made you for what YOU have chosen for yourself. If you have the slightest twinge, even the smallest, thinnest hair of uncertainty with your ‘lifestyle’ choice, maybe it is your conscience crying from beneath the ash=heap of rationalization. No one with a well-formed conscience would chose to participate in an act of death rather than a act of life. You have your disorders and I have mine. I’m working out mine–to get OVER then rather than rationalizing them and demanding everyone think them ‘perfectly natural’. Think about it, man! Your parts don’t fit and were never meant to fit. It is disordered because you cannot put the OUTCOME–PLEASURE before the PURPOSE–creation of LIFE. You, sir, cannot create LIFE with your male partner.

      • ErickMN

        You may consider yourself as nothing more than two interlocking body parts but, I assure you, the rest of us are far more complex that that. When you close your eyes tonight, ask yourself why you spend so many hours and so much effort rationalizing your intolerance and hatred as something somehow divine. They are not, and you have no shame.

        • Guest

          Denying the obvious truth will never settle your conscience. You want to stamp out all who speak the truth thinking it will help, but it does not.

          • ErickMN

            “Truth” is relative. You just happen to get yours from a stone-age book of fables.

            • Objectivetruth

              But yet…..above you use the words “I pray.”

              Why do you spend so much time on a Catholic website? Would you like to learn more about what the Catholic Church teaches on homosexuality? Possibly then you might be able to make more informed comments.

              • ErickMN

                If you don’t like your publicly-posted views challenged, don’t post them in public. Simple as that.

                Mainstream Catholics have little patience for the intolerance and hatred of you and your ilk. Your looming complete irrelevance hurts your feelings. Tough.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Your challenging my postings, but only with feelings, emotion, falsity and rage. You’re not challenging them with any erudition or knowledge of Catholic teaching.

                  • ErickMN

                    And the reality is that your “Catholic” teaching are more and more irrelvant to the public sphere with every passing day.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      How?

                      Interestingly, secular societies have been saying that about the Catholic Church for 2,000 years. The latest were Naziism and Communism. And yet, those two societies are gone, and the Church is still here. Christ definitely keeps His promise to protect His bride, the Church.

                    • Guest

                      Relevance matters only in relation to truth. That the masses often lead unexamined and shallow lives does not make it right or good.

                    • Asmondius

                      ‘And the reality is that your “Catholic” teaching are more and more irrelvant to the public sphere with every passing day…’

                      – Nero, Henry VIII, Napoleon, Stalin…. (take your pick)

                    • Objectivetruth

                      ……Herod, Sultan Suliman, Napolean…….Obama…….

                    • Asmondius

                      Exactly.

                • ForChristAlone

                  Minnesota Man, are you trying to shut down comments on this site unless they conform to your way of thinking?

                  • ErickMN

                    Don’t like your publicly-posted views challenged? Then don’t post them in PUBLIC. Simple as that.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, whenever you feel that you want to go to a place to experience love, just know that you are always welcome here. We’d be interested in your sharing with us your ideas about other topics as well.

                • Guest

                  You offer no challenge. All you give us is hatred and your insecurity.

                • Asmondius

                  Channeling ‘mainstream Catholics’ now, are we?

            • Objectivetruth

              “Truth” is relative.

              Please, extrapolate. Can you give a more in depth explanation?

            • ForChristAlone

              Exactly how can truth be relative? Truth is absolute.

            • ForChristAlone

              You are loved.

              • ErickMN

                Ish. Now that made my skin crawl.

                • ForChristAlone

                  I can understand. But just allow yourself to consider that what I am saying to you is genuinely meant. I DO love you.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Why would it make your skin crawl?

            • Guest

              It is relative to the unprincipled. That much is obvious.

        • ForChristAlone

          How would you know that he has no shame? Shame is yet another personal and subjective experience. Are you now aware of this?

        • Asmondius

          But we know which part goes with what. Others seem confused.

    • ForChristAlone

      Homosexuals have no children. Only a male and female together can have children. This is the natural law. And, for your information, no one here believes any of these allegations. I pray that, if you are saddled with same sex attraction, that you will live a life marked by chastity. You will find the happiness you are looking for, and God, who has loved you all along, as well.

      • ErickMN

        I pray that, if you are saddled with intolerance and bigotry, you will live a life marked by interpersonal reflection on why you hide behind your chosen religion to persecute others.

        • Guest

          Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.

        • ForChristAlone

          I am curious how you found this site and why someone who seeks to defend unnatural homosexual acts would come here to malign Catholics? Are you not aware that this is a site intended as a “voice for faithful lay Catholics?” What are you hoping to gain by coming here?

          • Objectivetruth

            Agreed. Seriously…..are you just having a bad day and here for a good rant, Erick?

            The funny thing is you can attack us all you want, but we’ll still love you. We invite you to find the joy and peace that wedge found in Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.

          • ErickMN

            If you only want people to agree with you, save your comments for your bathroom mirror. It’s not my problem you don’t like being challenged. Get over it, or find another hobby.

            • ForChristAlone

              Honestly, this is the place where you can come and feel loved.

            • Guest

              What challenge? All we have seen thus far is the usual gay propaganda.

            • Asmondius

              Challenge?

              Not really.

          • Asmondius

            Making up for a lack of success in the real world. Christian-baiting is a very popular activity for the unhappy.

        • Asmondius

          yawn

        • Objectivetruth

          You “pray”, Erick? To whom or what? It looks like from your postings that you’re an atheist.

      • mitch64

        Gay people do “have,” children..either by adoption or from a previous marriage. No matter what you might think of their “lifestyle,” or such, they do indeed have children, just as a single adoptive mother or father “have,” children. Adopted children are just as legitimate and part of a family and loved by God as children conceived by and living with their natural parents. I don’t think you meant to say anything other then that but in your rush to put down families of gay parents that is what you wrote.

        • Guest

          Those no comparison between normal adoptive parents and the fake homosexual arrangements.

    • Howard

      Invincibly illiterate would be closer to the truth, since you can’t even state your opponents position correctly.

    • Objectivetruth

      History will treat the LGBT movement unfavorably because it will be identified as one of the root immoral causes that led to the downfall of a once great country. Once moral values are jettisoned, so goes a great empire. Just ask the Romans.

      • ErickMN

        You are no different from your intolerant relatives who fought against equal rights for African Americans in the 50s and 60s. Their views ended up on the dustbin of history, and so will yours. Enjoy your rapid descent into irrelvancy.

        • Guest

          It is not about being “relevant”. That is most likely spray painted over the gates of hell. It is about truth and love.

          • ErickMN

            You’ll have to confirm that spray paining for us. We eagerly await your update.

            • ForChristAlone

              That’s not charitable.

              • ErickMN

                I don’t have to be “charitable” to the hateful. And I won’t.

                • ForChristAlone

                  I understand. But we prefer to love you.

                • John200

                  Yes, you will, and soon.

                  Now to specifics: No charity for yourself? Come on, Erick, let it go, develop a little love for yourself. You need it.

                  Later we can discuss your comprehensive misunderstanding of the word “hateful.” But for the nonce, work on your self-love. As you know, I don’t mean narcissism. It is OK, as a child of God you are supposed to learn to love yourself. You are ‘way behind where you should be.

                  Do you see?

            • Guest

              You reject all moral advice. That much is evident.

              BTW, as I said before truth is hate to those who hate truth.

        • ForChristAlone

          Please do not equate legitimate struggles for equality with homosexuality. That’s offensive.

          • ErickMN

            Coretta Scott King, late wife of Martin Luther, repeatedly and emphatically equated the struggle for LGBT equality with the civil rights movement. And she is quite certain Martin would have felt the same way. What possible qualifications do you have to to disagree with here, other than being a life-long armchair bigot?

            • Objectivetruth

              Not to be rude and correct you, but it’s “Martin Luther King”, not “Martin Luther.”

            • Art Deco

              Coretta Scott King, late wife of Martin Luther, repeatedly and
              emphatically equated the struggle for LGBT equality with the civil
              rights movement.

              He daughter Berneice had a bone to pick with her about that.

              That aside, why should I interest myself in Mrs. King’s opinions? Lots of women about that age in my parents circle of friends (most of whom would have said something else).

              • ErickMN

                Bernice was 5 when Martin died. Absurd point.

                Martin Luther King and Corretta Scott King are giants of the civil rights movement. And your parents’ friends are who?

                • Objectivetruth

                  But her husband, MLK jr., was very strong on his opposition to homosexual acts.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Here, Erick, is a little insight on Martin Luther King jr.’s very strong opposition to the gay lifestyle:

                  “In 1958, while writing an advice column for Ebony Magazine, Dr. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. To avoid being accused of “cherry-picking,” here is the exchange in its entirety:

                  Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?

                  Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”

                  • Objectivetruth

                    (Cont.) based upon this, Erick, you would have to conclude based upon what you have posted here that MLK is a “hater” and “intolerant?”

                    • Asmondius

                      Hello?

                      Erick?

                • Art Deco

                  Bernice was 5 when Martin died. Absurd point.

                  Come again? You fancy it’s something of interest when one of Martin Luther King’s 1st degree relations says x. O.K., his daughter, who is the only member of the family with any genuine accomplishments, says to her mother ‘non-X’. Why is it ‘absurd’ to point that out?

                  Martin Luther King and Corretta Scott King are giants of the civil rights movement.

                  No, she was married to an extraparliamentary politician active between the years running from 1955 to 1968. She herself was a capable public speaker in the sense of delivery of verbiage but never said one thing anyone would care to remember. Nor would you expect her to; very few people are cut out for public life or capable expositors of much of anything. Her status was roughly equivalent to that of Mrs. Nelson Rockefeller. except that Mrs. Rockefeller valued her privacy.

                  Coretta King by 1968 had lost a certain bare minimum of common sense that would have told her what to do with the rest of her life. She could have appealed to relations for a while for financial support, obtained a Georgia or Alabama teaching certificate, and gone to work as a music teacher. It was work she was trained to do that reflected some basic interests.

                  Instead, she set herself up as greater Atlanta’s most capable grant-money vent pipe and set up the King Center, a useless organization. The one practical thing the King Center did was maintain an archive, only to be called out by the American Library Association for endangering the contents due to the wretched environmental control of the facility. She eventually fobbed off the director’s chair on her son Dexter in her multi-year quest to find something resembling employment to occupy his time. Her previous gambit had been to put him to work chasing down people who used the Rev. King’s words without paying royalties.

                  Congenial people in Mrs. King’s social circle eventually gifted the director’s chair at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to her other son, despite the detail that he was not a minister and had never led anything. They later fired him for indolence. (Which may have been a sort of honesty on his part; the institutional mission of the SCLC dried up around about 1971).

                  Her older daughter was a sometime television actress who managed to land a part every eighteen months or so. In between, she cadged speaking fees from addresses with titles like “The Dream is Still a Dream”.

                  The one important thing Coretta King had to do was raise children. Children will break the heart of parents with the best of intentions and good skills. Hers sure did. Only one of her children ever married; only one managed to produce even one child (born a bastard, natch), and three of the four of them have led unserious simulacra of adult lives. In truth, Coretta King’s public career was, after 1968, a simulacrum of one as well.

            • Objectivetruth

              Apparently Coretta’s husband Martin was a bigot, based upon your definition.

              ” And she is quite certain Martin would have felt the same way.”

              Would you like the chance to redact that statement, Erick? As I’ve shown you in other postings, Martin Luther King was strongly opposed to homosexual acts. He was a very conservative Protestant minister, strong in his scriptural beliefs.

              • Art Deco

                Erick is unfamiliar with the uses and practice of artifice, wherein falsehoods are uttered where no deception is achieved and sometimes none is even attempted.

                Martin Luther King Jr died in 1968 and was a man of a certain vintage. For men of his time and type, homosexuals were regarded as sad wrecks or as figures of fun among those most benevolently disposed. You’d only see au courant views on that subject by the worst sort of ecclesiastical buffoon (Paul More, perhaps, or James Hashcookies Pike).

                • Art Deco

                  even intended.

              • ErickMN

                If you’d like Coretta to redact her reapeated and emphatic comments in support of LGBT equality, I suggest you take that up with her. Good luck with that.

                Martin Luther King’s response to the boy questioning his sexuality have been widely and variously interpreted. There is no consensus whatsoever among King scholars as to a definitive interpretation. Lame.

                There is no other doucumented commentary from Dr. King on homosexuality, gay people, or LGBT equality. None. Zero. Nada. Your “strongly opposed” argument is rapidly falling apart.

                Dr. King had several very close gay friends. That’s a fact.

                Combined with Coretta’s firm belief that her husband did and would have fully supported the LGBT community, your position is clearly not substantiated in any way. You are simply wrong about Dr. King. Have the good sense and graciousness to admit that, and move on with your life.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Sigh!

                  Erick, below is the website for Courage, the Catholic apostolate for homosexuals. Many members and supporters of the group have posted on the incredibly wonderful work they do. Can’t hurt to take a look:

                  http://couragerc.org

                  • ErickMN

                    Is that the best you can do when you get slapped down as a liar? Your desperation is hilarious!

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Erick! You’re back! I’m glad.

                      Any thought of discussing Jesus Christ? How Love for Him is much better than love for sin?

                    • ErickMN

                      Sorry, when it comes to fables, I’m totally an Aesop’s guy. Would you like me to recommend a few of my favorites?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      I’m a huge fan of Aesop’s.

                      But explain to me, why do you call Christ a fable?

                    • ErickMN

                      You are welcome to worship your sky daddy, or lawn chairs, or chocolate chips, or anything else you want. Just keep that cr*p out of our laws and secular marriages and we’ll get along just fine.

                      You were clearly out of your league discussing Coretta Scott and Dr. Martin Luther King, even embarassingly so. Would you like to try your hand at Desmond Tutu, Maya Angelou, Stephen Hawking, Nelson Mandela and Bill Gates? All of them, and many other great minds, fully support/supported complete LBGT equality. Who do you and your ilk have? A talking hairball from Duck Dynasty, who is now most famous for his bizarre commentary on sex with animals, and Ben Carson, now most famous for his bizarre commentary on sex with animals and children. Oh, and a bunch of senior Catholic clergy who enabled and harbored pedophile priests. You hang out with an ugly crowd.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Interesting reply.

                      But you didn’t answer my question.

                      Why do you call Christ a “fable?”

                      And why do you have so much venom for Him?

                    • Art Deco

                      You were clearly out of your league discussing Coretta Scott and Dr.
                      Martin Luther King, even embarassingly so. Would you like to try your
                      hand at Desmond Tutu, Maya Angelou, Stephen Hawking, Nelson Mandela and
                      Bill Gates?

                      A housewife from Atlanta, a clergyman come extraparliamentary politician (with feet of clay) whose methods had their moment but have been passe since about 1971, an anti-semitic harlequin who put in a number of years as an accessory to the African National Congress and a number of years as what passes for a bishop in the Anglican communion, a memoirist/fabulist/versifier/pseudo-professor who’s a fine example of the sustainability of a pretty good grift in the world of art and literary criticism, an astrophysicist, a South African lawyer/politician/convict with some virtues and a fist full of disagreeable associations, and a software magnate turned omnipresent philanthropist. Just what is the point of this helter-skelter list?

                    • ErickMN

                      Note that you are posting about these people, and not the other way around. Doesn’t that illustrate the futility of your rambling blather?

                    • Art Deco

                      I take it you won’t take a break from the juvenalia long enough to just answer my question.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick there are some good book on the natural law that would be helpful for you to read. We still love you.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      We love you Erick and glad you have returned.

                • Art Deco

                  Dr. King had several very close gay friends.

                  No, Bayard Rustin worked for him. So did Stanley Levison and Jack O’Dell, but we all aren’t knocking about making the case for livin’ the life of the Communist Party hack.

        • Asmondius

          How dare you compare the suffering of African Americans to middle class liberal whites who wish to call each other ‘hubby’.

  • JanCosgrove1945

    An interesting analysis and positive in its final recognition. That LGBT people have suffered hate and persecution for what is their nature cannot be denied. As a 14 year old boy in America has said in a very brave tv interview, there is a holocaust in the world given the numbers who are either killed or who commit suicide. Christians of all sects, who have become fixated on this issue, bear guilt as do Moslems, Communists, Fascists, and even democrats.

    The dreadful persecution of Alan Turing by the British State, enforced chemical castration, and subsequent suicide. He gets a Royal Pardon for what never should have been a crime. It is the state that committed the crime. My first job was in H Division of GCHQ in the 1960s. I came to realise what that man and his colleagues achieved in the war against nazism As great as any battle maybe even more. The state would have known and turned its convenient blind eye …. until moral panic took over and it suited otherwise. Shameful, it’s too late to recompense, the Pardon is worthless for those not pardoned, presumably because their service to the state in their lives wasn’t enough, remain with criminal histories even beyond their lives.

    Now the state is being seen to have covered up paedophilia on an industrial scale committed against the most vulnerable children.

    Given that context of vilification and hatred against them as the main experience they have had in society over a very long time, would it be that surprising that some voice wholly uncharitable views? We saw that with the feminist movement, but remember the word is “some” not “all”.

    My knowledge of gays is that “most” of them simply want to get on with their lives unimpeded by hatred, prejudice, inequality, abuse, attack, injury, murder, sacking from work etc “Some” may wish to enter in civil partnership/marriage, those who want their faiths to accept a new definition of church-sanctioned marriage have their work cut out. “Many” will simply want the right to be left alone with the ones they love, glad simply that the social climate is changing.

    I work vol with a local youth project. Years ago a youth worker might have seen a young boy and girl canoodling in a corner and commented wryly. Now it’s not just the boy and girl. The kids I am working with are bright, funny, passionate, eager to please, and hormonal. If I showed them the offending article, I know that all of them, whatever orientation, would not be impressed by calls such as described.

    • Objectivetruth

      But is there a better way, than “gay”, Jan?

      See my reply to you below, referencing the Catechism. Christ calls all of us differently: some to marriage, some to consecrated life, some to the chaste single life.

      Jesus was a single virgin that practiced chaste celibacy. No marriage, no children. Obviously, This was the will of His loving Father for Him. Scripture does tell us that some are called to this life, for the glory of God’s Kingdom.

      I would posit that children of God with a same sex attraction are called by Jesus to imitate His earthly calling and live a chaste, celibate life. Think about the incredible beauty of this: Christ personally calls some to live as He did. To walk in His footsteps. To experience life as He did, furthering the Kingdom of God. Looked at from this perspective, it’s an absolutely incredible invitation!

      This, I believe, is a better way than “gay.”

      • ErickMN

        You seriously expect all gay people to live empty, lonely, loveless lives because of your particuar misterpretation of scripture? Hilarious! Rather, why don’t you spend LESS time obsessing about the way others live their lives, and MORE time getting one of your own? Problem solved. You’re welcome.

        • Guest

          There is nothing more empty and lonely than vice.

          • ErickMN

            Thank you for sharing your experience with the class. May you find a path out of your sad life.

            • Guest

              You can try to cover it over but you cannot.

            • ForChristAlone

              Exactly how satisfied are you with your lifestyle?

              • ErickMN

                Fabulously so. What part of your miserable life compels you to persecute others?

                • ForChristAlone

                  We love you and want what is best for your life here and into eternity.

                  • ErickMN

                    Focus on your own problems.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      But, Erick, you must acknowledge that you were the one who came to this Catholic website to promote behavior that violates natural law. We did not go knocking on your door. But since you have done so, we will not refrain from assisting you to know the truth about that natural law. I love you.

                • Art Deco

                  What part of yours induces you to be so self-dramatizing as to speak of ‘persecution’ in this context?

        • Objectivetruth

          Interestingly, you’re exhibiting the exact lack of rational reasoning and discourse that the article attributes to those that defend the LGBT community of.

          But you didn’t read the article, did you?

          • ErickMN

            I read the article. There is nothing “rational” about you expecting gay people to live according to your particular narrow religious views. You confuse “rational reasoning” with ‘intolerant persecution’. You do a great disservice to your deity and his teachings.

            • Objectivetruth

              Tell me: what do you know about my “deity and his teachings?”

              I will posit, you know little or nothing at all.

              • ErickMN

                And I will posit, your intolerant commentary is simply an externalization of your own insecurity. How embarassing for you.

                • Objectivetruth

                  And you completely ignore my question. You are a fine example of what the article describes coming from the LGBT community. Thank you for stepping up and showing us.

                • ForChristAlone

                  Embarrassment is a personal and subjective experience. How could you possibly know what his experience is?

                • Objectivetruth

                  My comments reflect Catholic teaching. Can you specifically tell us what about the Catholic teaching on homosexual acts that you disagree with, and why?

            • ForChristAlone

              If you are looking for a way out of the homosexual lifestyle, then I would suggest that you look into Courage. They have helped amny people like yourself.

              • Objectivetruth

                Agreed.

                Erick, any thoughts on looking in to “Courage?”

              • ErickMN

                If you are looking for a way out of your miserable intolerance and bigotry, I suggest a good cry, and then therapy.

                • ForChristAlone

                  No, the antidote for all that ails us is always to love. That would be true for you as it is for me.

                • Guest

                  If you are looking for a way out of your miserable intolerance and bigotry, I suggest a good cry, and then therapy.

            • Objectivetruth

              But many homosexuals do live according to my religious views. And they live it with great peace, joy and love.

        • ForChristAlone

          First, find out who WAS married to Coretta Scott King. Then get back to us.

        • Objectivetruth

          My interpretation of scripture is the Catholic Church’s, who has authority over scripture.

          But a question, Erick. In another post, you call scripture “a stone age book of fables.” So how can you possibly make any interpretive, educated comments on scripture if you dismiss it?

        • Asmondius

          Life is simply empty, lonely and loveless without sodomy, eh?

          • John200

            Best comment in the thread.

            Quick, accurate, helpful if Erick reads it,… it’s a three-fer.

          • ErickMN

            Why do you suppose you spend so much time thinking about that? Can’t find anything better to do than obsess about the sex lives of OTHER PEOPLE? Ha ha ha ha!

            • Asmondius

              Well, I quoted you – obviously this is the crux of your own life.

    • ForChristAlone

      I’d advise an intense and thorough study of the natural law on your part. You are obviously missing an essential component to whatever education you’ve received. No doubt you are a victim of State-run schools. They actually are quite lethal, you know, to an adequate education.

    • Steve Frank

      Jan,

      First you made this statement:

      “That LGBT people have suffered hate and persecution for what is their nature cannot be denied.”

      Then you said this:

      “Now the state is being seen to have covered up paedophilia on an industrial scale committed against the most vulnerable children”

      So my question to you is why are you maligning pedophiles for acting upon what is THEIR nature? And before you come back and tell me how dare I say that homosexuality is equally harmful as pedophelia (which is the standard response nowadays), let me make it clear I am NOT saying they are equally harmful. What I am saying is we have to define what “nature” means when we make a statement like you did. Our post modern culture has redefined “natural” in a new way. It no longer means in accordance with natural law as God has defined it through the created order. It now means the “nature” of each individual. So if a man has a sexual orientation that causes him to be sexually aroused by looking at another man, then it’s still considered natural because he is supposedly just reacting the way he as an individual is hard wired. But the problem is if this new definition of “natural” is true, then pedophiles can justify their actions too. Even if you believe acts of pedophelia should be outlawed because children can not give proper consent, if you want to be logically consistent you still need to admit that pedophelia is perfectly natural. But most people who tell us homosexuality is natural will NOT admit that pedophelia is natural. They will just go on about how pedophelia is harmful but homosexuality is not, which of course is completely beside the point. Such an argument presumes that if something is harmful then it can’t be natural which is ridiculous. Tornadoes and earthquakes are natural but they are also harmful. So harm tells us nothing about what is natural. So my basic point here is that any argument to defend gay rights or same sex marriage by saying “people are only acting upon their nature” is bogus unless those same people are willing to say that pedophiles or necropheliacs are only acting upon THEIR nature so we should not judge them harshly. The reality is that the pro-homosexual apologists want to have it both ways….when it comes to homosexuality they want to define “nature” according the the individuals and their own unchosen inclinations and impulses. But when it comes to pedophelia however, these same apologists are typically quite content to go back to the old fashioned definition of “natural” based on natural law (ie. that biology itself tells us that it is unnatural for an adult to have sex with a pre-pubescent child). What this illustrates is the complete collapse of logical debate in our post modern culture. People jump back and forth between logic and feelings in their arguments, without any cohesive rational logical argument flow. That’s why it’s almost impossible to debate this issue in the present cultural climate.

    • WW

      Thanks for the relativism commercial.

  • Jay Hochstedt

    There are no social situations now in which persons of contrary views meet; there is no commons and so there is no communication only one way dictatorial pronouncements – no invitations to dialogue. But this century about through the reign of neoconservative ideologues under GWB – dissenters were smeared or shouted down, driven into their own forums where this form of declamation became the rule. Then when a new chief executive was elected, the faction previously in power kept up their own style of denunciation; when Obama continued to try dialogue in his first term, he found himself denounced from those to his left and only achieved a second term by giving in to them. We are ruled by Nihil lists left and right neither of whom knows the terms of the other; conservatives appear incapable of translating the idiom familiar to them into something that can be readily grasped – it’s a legal and academic idiom in which the Other is faulted as much for failure to know the referents as he is for falling for an opposing ideology.

    • ForChristAlone

      “There are no social situations now in which persons of contrary views meet; there is no commons and so there is no communication only one way dictatorial pronouncements – no invitations to dialogue”

      Does God “dialogue” with Satan?

    • WW

      What does this mean?

  • The Truth

    As long as these people think homosexuals have no choice in their behavior, they will never comprehend what Christianity teaches on the subject. According to them being homosexual is like being black. The color of your skin pigmentation is not an act. Being born with homosexual inclinations doesn’t mean you have to act upon them. Anymore than a heterosexual has to. They can’t can’t seem to comprehend that we are intelligent being’s with the capacity for free will and choice. The problem isn’t saying homosexual acts are immoral, it’s stating why they are. If you tell heterosexuals sex before marriage is immoral you’ll get the same uprising. They can’t see how these behavior’s hurt the person spiritually. Why? Because they don’t believe in God, especially Jesus Christ. And if they do, they don’t know His teaching’s. they are shallow, but so are many Christians. When you have so-called Christians denominations “marrying” homosexuals, what separates them from the world?

    • ErickMN

      Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality, gay people or same sex marriage. What compels you and your ilk to lie in his name? Shame on you.

      Coretta Scott King, late wife of Dr. Martin Luther, repeatedly and emphatically compared the struggle for LGBT equality with the civil rights movement. What possible qualifications do you have to debate her? Many other great minds share/shared her opinion, including Nelson Mandela, Maya Angelou, Desmond Tutu, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, etc. You should be throughly embarassed by your smallmindedness.

      Finally, your bizarre belief that gay people should lead empty, lonely, loveless lives just because YOUR worldview is stuck in the stone age is nothing more than absurd. I suggest you spend less time obsessing about the way OTHER PEOPLE live their lives, and more time addressing the problems in YOUR OWN. Sheesh.

      • Guest

        This is how you reason?

      • ForChristAlone

        Minnesota Man, would you kindly give us direct quotes and sources for your assertions that all those so-named “repeatedly and emphatically” compared the “struggle” for homosexual “rights” with that of others “civil rights.”

        Oh, and by the way, Coretta Scott King was NOT the wife of Martin Luther.

        • ErickMN

          I suggest you spend less time being hateful, and more time Googling.

          • ForChristAlone

            As for me, less time googling and more time in prayer perhaps. I love you, Erick.

          • Guest

            Everything is “hate” to people looking to excuse vice.

      • John200

        Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, (infinite sequence of laughter),..

        God love you EWreck, (southern saying, we try to be nice to our retarded brethren down here),

        When you moon us, we see it. And we are commanded to tell you the truth, ridiculous display of your bum notwithstanding. So here it comes, watch out, it is right there….

        Human beings should lead lives that take them to God.

        Homo”sex”uals, lovers of defective and perverted acts, remain human and should lead lives that take them to God.

        Do you see?

        • ErickMN

          No one forces you to obsess and post about gay sex. You CHOOSE to do that. Why? Does your sky daddy tell you to do that?

          Don’t forget to clear your cache and temporary files. You don’t need another “incident” with your wife.

          • John200

            Dear EWreck,
            You are mooning, but I am not looking. I commend you to the next decent person who might try to tell you the truth. There are many here who can help you.

  • TERRY

    They don’t want reasoned, logical (Vulcan?) debate because they realize that they can’t win, so they do everything they can to avoid it.

  • Howard

    Josh Barro is a public figure?

    If a random poll were to ask people to choose the correct answer to this question, how many do you think would get it right?

    Josh Barro is ___.
    a) a professional baseball player
    b) a journalist
    c) an immigration lawyer
    d) an economist
    e) a candidate for the House of Representatives

    My guess is 20%.

    It would be hard to underestimate his influence.

    • DE-173

      As an individual, yes. But every drop is a part of the flood.

      • Howard

        Not if the drop falls on the other side of the continental divide.

        The private opinion of a person without influence is still just a private opinion. It should not be a surprise that there is a range of such opinions — did you need the media to tell you that? Meanwhile, the ONLY thing he has really accomplished is to get people talking about an old newspaper. Given trends in the industry, there is no such thing as bad publicity from the point of view of newspaper execs.

        • DE-173

          Whether it’s paper or bytes, Barrro represents a view that has a hegemonist control on media, politics, entertainment and law.

          • Howard

            Then concentrate on it in law, where it matters. Everyone has crazy relatives who say embarrassing things, but as long as the words are not followed by crazy deeds, they are best ignored.

            So if this were said by a member of the Obama cabinet or staff, it would be noteworthy. If a Supreme Court justice said this, it would be noteworthy. When this guy says it, it is no different than your eccentric uncle saying it.

            • DE-173

              “If a Supreme Court justice said this, it would be noteworthy.”

              Have you read Anthony Kennedy’s opinions?

              • Howard

                Those are not good for my peace of mind. They would have been a better subject for a post, though.

            • ForChristAlone

              Hard to say exactly who the leaders of this cult is. Oh, I got it – his name is Light Bearer.

              • Howard

                As far as I can tell, that is a complete no sequitur.

            • Asmondius

              True if your uncle is published in the Times, et al.

    • ForChristAlone

      who?

      • Howard

        Yeah. My guess would have been (a).

    • Art Deco

      Josh Barro is a public figure?

      As an opinion journalist, he does qualify as one for purposes of civil litigation.

      • Howard

        Technically, you are no doubt correct. He is not “public” in any of the main senses that might be expected, though: He is not well known; he is not in a position of public authority; and it is not clear that those in positions of public authority care much what his opinions are.

        • Art Deco

          So what?

          • Howard

            Yes, that is precisely my question about this post! Someone of no importance holds the wrong opinion. Well, knock me over with a feather! All that has happened is that by now I have wasted about 20 minutes discussing the error of an absolute nobody. Obama has practically crowned himself Tsar of All the Americas and is issuing edicts that are enforced by the police, but here we sit discussing the nasty opinion of some nobody in a dying medium. So what indeed.

            • Art Deco

              If you’re not interested in what catches the author’s interest, you might just read something else. Problem solving ability, it’s great stuff.

              • Howard

                Back at you. It was worth pointing out that this is misplaced effort, even though you stubbornly resist this fact.

                • Art Deco

                  It is not. His business is commenting on the passing scene. Lot’s of small things to notice. In any case, his example is illustrative.

                  By the way, chum, we’re all familiar with the sort of bogus ‘process’ complaints posts like this generate. Take it somewhere else.

                  • Howard

                    He is the little boy crying wolf when there is no wolf. Yes, there are wolves in the forest, but that is a squirrel.

                    I can’t help but notice that you are not the blog owner. If you don’t like what I say, follow your own advice and take your opinions elsewhere.

                    • Art Deco

                      No, there’s a wolf. His example is illustrative, and you, sir, are a poseur.

    • bonaventure

      Doesn’t matter that Josh Barro is little know. He speaks out loud what 100% of liberals — and certainly all liberal public figures (whether they be actors or politicians) — believe.

      • Howard

        Yes, it does matter, since the point of this post is not about what we suspect we know about other people’s secret beliefs, or what we can reasonably guess on the basis of how they behave; it was a reaction to what this one joker Barro wrote.

        You imply that you ALREADY KNEW what “all liberal public figures believe”. Fine; then the article didn’t change either their belief or your knowledge of their belief. If nothing changed, this article should just be ignored.

        In fact, the only way there would be any sense in paying attention to this article is if his column is going to change either public opinion or change public policy some way. If he is not well known, though, he will not have much effect on either public opinion or public policy.

        Now I’ve spent much more time on this than it’s worth. If other people want to get excited about this, or about something they read on the walls of public restrooms, fine, be my guest.

        • bonaventure

          Josh Barro’s column on its own might not change much public opinion or public policy since his reach is limited. But multiply Josh Barro’s opinions by 100,000, and you you get that many gullible liberal columnists who ARE doing everything within their limited scope of influence to change public opinion with all the sacred cow liberal causes, and from there to change public policy.

          AND THAT’S THE ESSENCE OF THIS ARTICLE.

          And now that you’re better informed, feel free to return to reading graffiti on walls in public restroom. Oh, and for the future, don’t betray your fantasies about public restroom in public. No one cares about it, but an ideological enemy will not hesitate to use it against you.

  • Art Deco

    I see the sorosphere has rotated in its replacements, including one for the ‘you big meanie’ role.

  • bonaventure

    Ironically (in ref. to the picture of Chaplin as HitIer), most early Nazis were literally LGBT people (well, more like GBT). In fact, the Nazi terrorist paramilitary organization (the S.A.) were almost ALL active “in your face” homosexuals, led by a ruthless and openly homosexual criminal: Ernst Roehm.

    • mitch64

      Ah bonaventure you need to put down your copy of the “Pink Triangle.” and get all you facts “straight.” “Most,” early Nazis were most certainly not gay, you are wrong on that, however, there WAS indeed a great many gays in the SA and Ernst Roehm most certainly was. They were indeed Hitler’s “brawn,” (funny when posters accuse all gay people of being feminine…Roehm and his boys would have a few words about that…) However, the party itself banned homosexual activity as early as 1935 and in 1936 started a group many people on here would be interested in “Central Office for Combatting Abortion and Homosexuality.” So, your inference that gay people are similar to Nazis is just as sound as saying that people against abortion and homosexuality have much in common with Nazis. See how that doesn’t ring make any sense?

      Anyway, the whole gay SA thing really sprang from a way of thinking in certain German circles of that time, pre Nazi, that femininity was bad, (i.e being a victim) and that from Greek time onwards the best and most feral male warriors were gay, and that ultimately Germany would be saved by gay males who make a master race to protect you puny straight people too busy dithering around with your kids, car pools, lawns, etc. So you can see that these people made up a small percentage of the Nazi party, and have little to nothing to do with the gay movement of today. Though Roehm evil as he was..was one bad you know what who died like he lived..refusing suicide and daring Hitler to come do it himself.

      However, an interesting discussion would center on gay men and fascist movements, and why a lot of people involved in anti gay movements have a little bit of sugar in their tanks.

      • bonaventure

        (1) This is not information from the Pink Swastika. This is information from real history books, as well as the homosexuals themselves. I’ve learned this many years ago at school in a regular history class, and there never was any controversy about it, no teachers fired over it, etc. There were only laughs at the mention of homosexuality, as indeed there should be at anything so perverted and unnatural.

        Anyway, listen to Allen Ginsberg (1960s/1970s homosexual activist)”: “Well, I think, saying that, this has already happened in a sense — or of sex perverts — and we can point to Hitler, Germany under Hitler.” — Allen Ginsberg, when asked if he was interested to form a homosexual political party.

        (2) Not everyone thinks of homosexuals as effeminate. Don’t assume that people who oppose the homosexual agenda are all stupiid. The most obnoxious, hateful, perverted, and borderline criminal homosexuals are the “masculine” kind. These are the very same devious perverts who parade naked and are the most debauched in homosexual prancing parades around the world.

        (3) The Nazis did not ban homosexuality. Homosexuality was banned in Germany BEFORE they came to power, and — even though many were homosexuals — they kept the ban simply to please the great majority of the population which, at that time, was (rightly) offended by this kind of perverted sexual behavior.

        (4) The “whole gay SA thing” which you describe is really not much different from today’s prevalent contraceptive & homosexualist ideology, whereby natural parenthood is look down upon, children are aborted because they are seen as a burden, pleasure is proclaimed as the primary function of sex, etc. Which is, btw, also very much in line with the debauched manifestations of ancient Greco-Roman culture.

        (5) But the ultimate relation between homosexuals in the Nazi party and today’s homofascists are their hatred for [a] the Church, [b] Christianity, [c] the Judeo-Christian ethic, [d] the Moral Law, [e] a true representative republic, etc. Oh yeah, and their violent and intolerant tactics against anyone who dares to oppose them.

        • Guest

          Excellent.

        • Objectivetruth

          Very well done.

        • ForChristAlone

          Thanks bonaventure for this very clearly detailed history.

        • mitch64

          “I’ve learned this many years ago at school in a regular history class, and there never was any controversy about it, no teachers fired over it, etc. There were only laughs at the mention of homosexuality, as indeed there should be at anything so perverted and unnatural.”

          So we know that was many, many years ago. Of course, it could be that you were in grade school where we found any mention of sex, or a bodily function, such as a fart hi-larious! (okay so I still do.)

          Anyway, your history is not completely accurate so I would urge you, and everyone giving you kudos as you backed up their world view, to do some more research on it. “The “whole gay SA thing”” that whole sentence was so over the top and reaching that it is funny. Much less what follows in No. 5 but I am glad that you and other posters here are proving what I said up thread where both sides are indulge in this over the top pronouncements of the other other sides ideas, and how that stops everything in its tracks. Luckily most of the world is not so wedded to their intense and cartoony vision of the world like the far right and the far left is. I think the best thing to do is to throw you all into a mud pit and let the rest of the world go on about its business.

          • bonaventure

            You wrote: “I think the best thing to do is to throw you all into a mud pit and let the rest of the world go on about its business.”

            Just like the Vietcong in Vietman, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and the current regime of North Korea (the worst communists who ever walked the face of the earth) did (and still do) to their political opponents in jails and concentration camps.

            Your last statement just proves that liberals are hateful and intolerant of any opposing opinion, while pretending to be moderate.

            Have a good life, and don’t be surprised if another lefty beats you at your own game and throws YOU into a mud pit. Lefties are known to do that to each other, as soon as they feel their grab on power threatened by a rival lefty.

            • ErickMN

              Every time you post here, you support a plethora of tech companies that strongly support complete LGBT equality, including marriage equality, e.g. Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Intel, Google, Amazon, HP, etc. etc. etc. Thank you for your continual hypocrisy, and for so regularly supporting those noble causes. And keep posting!

              • bonaventure

                As soon as the tide turns, these very companies will turn against your sacred cow causes.

                • ErickMN

                  It doesn’t look like the tide is gonna turn anytime soon. More and more companies, and legislators, and judges, and voters, etc. join the cause every day. But I understand your bitterness. Every time you check the news, you get slapped hard across the face AGAIN. That’s no fun, is it?

                  • bonaventure

                    The communists believed that their ideology was the final synthesis of all political systems and will last forever (it lasted +/- 70 years); the Nazis believed that their Reich would last 1000 years (it lasted 12 years).

                    • ErickMN

                      Enjoy your silly little fantasy. That’s obviously how you deal with the humiliation of losing again, and again, and again. You’ve lost the battle, and the war. Pick up your toys, and go home.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      The only true home is love.

                    • 90Lew90

                      But we’re not talking about political systems or ideological movements or corporate identity here, are we. At bottom we’re talking about homosexuality, which has been around longer than your religion. Why is that? Because it’s natural. But then what with “the Fall” and all, you’re not too keen even on nature either. Are you? And yet, with all this basic hate in you, one of the most galling things about the Christian is how he co-opts the language of “love” and “truth” and “hope”. You can’t even leave the language untainted by your hateful, twisted, macabre cant.

                    • Art Deco

                      Because it’s natural.

                      Like plagues and pestilences. (I seem to recall ‘it is natural’ was a turn of phrase favored by Anton LeVey).

                    • ForChristAlone

                      we do not hate…we cannot hate. we love you Lew…I love you Lew

                    • 90Lew90

                      I can do without the Christian version of love. It corresponds quite closely with what I would call hate. Now if you think about that long and hard enough, you’ll find it makes sense, and I am by far not the first person to have thought it. It is a devastating truth, particularly if you’ve been raised Christian (catholic) as I was. But then you get up more clear-eyed with a better idea of what “love” is. The most effective way to spread love is to begin with yourself. Self-love is not an evil but a good, as is recognised in the Eastern traditions, in which it is seen as essential for a life lived well ethically. And it is precisely the opposite of what is recommended in Christianity. Christianity confuses love with pity. Pity is ruinous. Compassion is good. It may seem as though I’m splitting hairs but these distinctions are important. And please don’t be so inane as to tell me you love me when I’m some faceless nonentity you’ve never met communicating to you over the internet. You’re debasing important language.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Lew, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.”

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Erick, in the end love rules the day.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    “It doesn’t look like the tide is gonna turn anytime soon. More and more companies, and legislators, and judges, and voters, etc. join the cause every day.”

                    Looks like he’ll is going to be one crowded place!

                    Do you fear possible eternal damnation, Erick?

              • Guest

                That is not equality that is immature and shallow people acting on there seared conscience.

              • Objectivetruth

                So you are claiming these for profit corporations hold some type of moral authority? Most of the companies you mentioned also run sweatshops in Asia, should we claim they are taking the moral high ground? They are only appeasing the “gay” demographic to try and gain your business, that’s all. I’m sorry Erick…..but “gays” are being used by these companies to make money off of you. You are being used.

                • ErickMN

                  Those companies – and many others – produce a quality product that I want. As an added, wonderful bonus, they use some of my money to support causes that align with at least one of my values, LGBT equality. If I’m being “used”, I couldn’t be happier about it.

                  Those same companies – and many others – happily take your money and use it to support causes that directly conflict with your values. But you’re willing to overlook that, i.e. compromise your values, because you want their products. That makes you a textbook example of a hypocrite every day of your intolerant life.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    The only thing we tolerate Erick is loving you – a very profound love indeed.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    I’ve got to chuckle, and hand it to you, Erick! No kidding……you truly have a lot of hate in your heart! Seriously…..don’t you have something better to do than hang out on a Catholic website?!

                  • Objectivetruth

                    Those companies are using you, Erick. They are laughing at you every day, as they get rich on your money.

              • ForChristAlone

                We will keep posting about how much we love you.

                • ErickMN

                  Thank you for contributing to the cause of LGBT equality. Day, after day, after day.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    I love you very much erick

            • 90Lew90

              “Your last statement just proves that liberals are hateful and intolerant of any opposing opinion, while pretending to be moderate.”

              Funny, I had come to the conclusion that Christians were the hateful, intolerant ones. Maybe you’re just surrounded by them and find the voice of reason, well… intolerable.

              • bonaventure

                You were wrong in your conclusion. After all, it’s the liberal user “mitch64” — rather than any Christian here — who has suggested to throw his ideological opponents in a mud pit and let them die there.

                • 90Lew90

                  Oh but I’ve got a veritable wealth of life-experience which has led me to that conclusion.

                  • Guest

                    Your experience is colored by your pathology.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Let your experience here be one of being loved by us all.

              • Guest

                Sodomy will never stop being evil.

              • ForChristAlone

                Christian actually love all homosexuals, Lew

          • John200

            Dear Mitch64,
            Thank you for throwing your interlocutors into a mud pit and, at last, revealing the truth of your situation.

            I KNEW you had to moon us. After several hundred homo”sex”uals came here to behave like you, there was no doubt whatsoever. So pull your pants up. We aren’t attracted and we don’t do that stuff.

            Let us look forward. FYI:
            1. The truth about sex is openly available.
            2. You can start where you are (others have been just as bad). What matters is where you end up.
            3. Here you met faithful Catholic laity. Come back any time. I/we/the others here will help you.

            Best wishes. It will be a long journey.

            • ErickMN

              How hilarious that you are so obviously threatened by gay people. Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose they elicit such a powerful emotional reaction in you? That is certainly not the “norm”. Good luck sorting out the demons in your head. It will be a long journey.

              • Guest

                There is no such thing as “gay” people. That is like saying democrat people or republican people. It is a contrive group.

                • ErickMN

                  How sad that you live without any sort of grasp of reality. And hilarious, too.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    The only reality there is Erick is “love”

                    • ErickMN

                      The only reality here is that you are creepy and inappropriate.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.;.

                  • Guest

                    “Gayness” is political ideology.

              • ForChristAlone

                The only powerful emotions that homosexuals elicit from us, Erick, is love. I love you more and more Erick.

                • ErickMN

                  How unfortunate that your sky daddy didn’t teach you boundaries and appropriateness. Everything about you screams “creepy”.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you..;

              • John200

                Dear EWreck,
                Homo”sex”ual activity is no threat to me. You, as today’s homo”sex”ual troll, are no threat to me. You are not even a worthy interlocutor. You are a dullard who has not offered a single worthy thought in approx. 50 comments. Do you even know what the article was about?

                I am spanking you, and you are enjoying it, for the benefit of readers who might see your impotence and avoid landing where you are heading. Later in life, you yourself might grow up.

                Sorting demons would be a productive activity, far more useful than homo”sex”ual activity. It is a good job for you.

                Why are you still here? Do you never go to work?

                • ErickMN

                  Other than confirming, once again, that you spend a LOT of time thinking about gay sex, I, otherwise, don’t see any point to your post. You seem to just be throwing some sort of online hissy fit. Why does that subject eat at your soul, John?

                  • John200

                    EWreck,
                    You again? I know you don’t see my point. I spend very little time thinking about homo”sex”ual activity. I repeat a few conclusions I made based on the faith, natural law, Saint JPII’s Theology of the Body, biology, and a few other sources. All this is beyond you, but it might help the next person.

                    Do your worst, and one day maybe you will grow up. Until then, I leave your adjective in place…

                    Pitiful.

                    • ErickMN

                      All you do is post about gay sex. So you must think about it all the time. Why? Do you suppose your heterosexual friends, assuming you have any, sit around all day thinking and posting about gay sex? Probably not. Just YOU. And that’s hilarious! Keep the whiny posts coming!

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.=

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.[

              • ForChristAlone

                Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you./’

            • mitch64

              Dear John200,

              I cannot tell if its reading comprehension, will full ignorance or a basic drama queen bent, but if you thought a mud pit reference (as in both sides far right and far left nuts wrestling) was offensive…

              And once again, as a supposed avoid hetero”sex,” ual you are still focused on body parts and this time you threw in pants falling down. It does seem after several posts involving that, you are indeed attracted..to something…

              And John, I can access the help of any number of faithful laity in my own parish thank you. I will try to be positive and take it that you meant that in a loving, spiritual way instead of the condescending way it came across. I would suggest that you try to meet up with and seek the help of Catholic laity who are not only faithful, but filled with the joy of their faith and of their fellow sinners…(as we all are.)

              Best wishes to you also..and I mean that sincerely.

              • John200

                Best to you and yours. I’ll say a prayer to St. Clare (it’s her day!) for you.

  • Tony

    Homosexual pseudogamy is based upon a mass of lies. And lies must be propped up with great energy and ruthlessness, or they will fall of their own weakness. Any sane father is going to raise his boy to be a boy, then a man, oriented in his mind and heart in the same direction in which his body is oriented, towards fulfillment in marriage and family. That’s why the ideologues cannot leave the children alone, to let nature work in her ordinary way. Wheels within wheels here, compulsions upon compulsions.

    It’s a hideous dream, this Sexual Revolution….

    • ErickMN

      Your focus on children, and their “proper” sexualization, is disturbing and frightening. Why do you suppose you spend so much time thinking about that? Hopefully you don’t have unsupervised time with them. Sheesh.

      • ForChristAlone

        We still love you Erick but you’re off the mark here. You will need to study up more on the proper role of the father in the family.

        • Objectivetruth

          Agreed. I’m glad Erick is sticking around. There was a story of a local “gay” television personality that had purchased a little baby boy with his partner through IVF/surrogacy. As the two men stood there proudly holding their new acquisition, the confused face of the baby looking at the two men and then around the room was quite telling. It looked as if the baby was saying “hey……where’s my Mommy?”

      • Objectivetruth

        You come across Erick as a very angry person. Why? You hate us, yet we love you. And Christ loves you, whether you believe that or not.

        You are loved, Erick. I recommend you take advantage of this website and learn why Christ is “the cause of our joy.”

        And it seems you almost have a hatred for Christ. Why? Possibly, is it because Jesus wants us (you) to repent from our sins, and not live in a sinful lifestyle?

        Trust me Erick that turning from sin and following Christ will bring great peace and joy. I found that to be true. I hope your presence here are steps on your journey to Christ.

        • ErickMN

          I don’t hate you. I am indifferent towards you. I don’t hate your sky daddy, either. I am indifferent to him/it as well. Again, keep all of your religious cr*p out of our laws and secular marriages and we’ll get along just fine.

          Please stop with the nauseating “love” comments. I view your “love” the same way I’d view a creepy old man in the park offering candy to children. Yuck.

          Trust me, turning away from intolerance will bring you great peace and joy. I strongly suggest you consider that.

          • Objectivetruth

            If you are so “indifferent”, Erick, why do you keep coming back to Crisis?

            I’m not indifferent about you, Erick. I hope and pray you come in to the fullness of Christ, His love and His Church.

            You remind me of St. Augustine, whose heart was restless living a sinful life away from Christ. Your heart will only find peace Erick once you come to Christ’s love.

            • ErickMN

              You and your ilk epitomize the ugly side of religion. No wonder your voice becomes more and irrelvant in the public sphere with every passing day.

              • Objectivetruth

                But then why do you spend so much of your time with us, Erick?

                • ErickMN

                  There is value in shining the light on religious evil, and exposing the ugly side of that agenda. How wonderful that it makes you uncomfortable.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    None of us is uncomfortable with the love we have for you Erick. It gives us great joy to love you.

                    • ErickMN

                      As long as you keep your creepy “love” out of our laws and secular marriages, we’ll get along just fine.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    No…doesn’t make me uncomfortable at all! I’m glad you’re here!

              • ForChristAlone

                Despite what the public sphere thinks about our religion of love, you are and will continue to be loved by all of us here. I love you, Erick.

                • ErickMN

                  Keep your creepy “love” to yourself. Yuck.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you..,….

          • Guest

            You come back because our words keep haunting your withered conscience. You want it to stop so you can feel at ease. It never stops because “gayness” is pathology. It requires treatment.

          • Objectivetruth

            Tomorrow’s Sunday, Erick. Why don’t you go find a Catholic mass near your home, and attend? Go see what’s all about. The absolute joy that I’ve found. Do you have any Catholic friends? Possibly join them tomorrow?

            • ErickMN

              Tomorrow’s Sunday, hater. Why don’t you take a break from hiding behind your fable book to persecute others, and do something useful for a change? Go feed the poor, or heal the sick. Or perhaps you could take some time to reflect on the evil of your intolerance. Your sky daddy would like that.

              • Objectivetruth

                Were you raised in any faith belief, Erick?

                • ErickMN

                  Irrelevant.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Do you believe in love, Erick?

                    • ErickMN

                      I believe you are creepy.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    Why is it irrevelant?

                  • Objectivetruth

                    Are your parents practicing Catholics/Christians?

              • Objectivetruth

                I very much enjoy helping the poor, visiting the sick. Christ’s love compels me to help my brothers and sisters who need help,

                In what way have I been intolerant? I have only invited you to discover Christ, and His Catholic Church?

                • ErickMN

                  And I have made it crystal clear that I have no interest in your imaginary deity or your church. I wouldn’t dream of assoicating with people like you, who hide behind their chosen religion to persecute others. Forutunately, mainstream America feels exactly the same way.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Christ loves you as well Erick. He died for you and for me. I love you Erick. Please realize this.

                    • ErickMN

                      I realize you are truly creepy.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.,.,.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    “And I have made it crystal clear that I have no interest in your imaginary deity or your church. ”

                    No interest? Then what are you doing spending hours and hours on this Catholic website?

              • ForChristAlone

                Just allow us to love you because you have the dignity of a human person who is created for love. I love you.

                • ErickMN

                  You’re like the creepy old man in the park offering candy to children. Ish.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    You’re like the perverted young man that I’m going to keep my sons away from. Ish.

          • Objectivetruth

            No, Erick……..we do love you. You are a fellow child of God, to be loved.

            But not in the impure, hard hearted perverted way you describe. But in a pure, Christ like way.

            Once you discover the Christ dwelling in your heart, Erick, everything changes. You don’t look at others the same way, ever again. They are not looked on as lustful, sexual objects of desire. They are looked at as if they were Christ Himself. This is what the love of Christ will bring you, Erick.

          • ForChristAlone

            I love you, Erick. I really do love you.

      • Guest

        He is concerned because there is too much control over kids by homosexuals and their agents.

        • ErickMN

          That “control” only exists in your head. How sad that you have to go through life harboring such bizarre delusions.

          • 90Lew90

            “Homosexuals and their agents.” That’s the best one I’ve seen in a while. Do you think maybe they fly around in pink helicopters.

            • ErickMN

              I know! You can only find that bizzare stuff on sites like this. Very entertaining.

              • Guest

                Should you not be in some parade exhibiting the usual “gay” pathology?

                • ErickMN

                  Why are you obsessed with what I do? Get a life of your own, and you won’t have time for that foolishness. You’re welcome.

                  • Guest

                    Just pointing out the obvious.

              • ForChristAlone

                huh?

            • Guest

              No, just the usual credulous dolts that seek the affirmation of effete people.

            • ForChristAlone

              huh

          • Art Deco

            harboring such bizarre delusions.

            Having a child enrolled in a Massachusetts school system is a great inducement to acquiring such ‘delusions’.

          • Guest

            The control is by credentialed misfits, political perverts, and other associated relativists who think evil is good.

            • ErickMN

              Thanks for sharing your paranoia, Chicken Little!

              • ForChristAlone

                kinda juvenile wouldn’t you say?

              • Guest

                Paranoia? Go back to your parade.

          • ForChristAlone

            you are acting out your inner conflicts here erick

      • Tony

        Very strange. I want the schools OUT of the sexuality peddling business. It is the business of parents, PERIOD, to raise their sons and daughters in that regard. Nobody else has any business talking to kids about sex, unless the parents have delegated the authority, for very limited purposes (say, to somebody in a catechism class). Any sane father wants his son to grow up to be a normal kid, and nobody has any right to get in that father’s way. It is NOBODY ELSE’S BUSINESS. Did you not read what I said? I want these people OUT of the kid’s head. I want nature and the family to do their ordinary work, without other people messing with the kid for their political purposes.

        If the guy down the street did what these teachers do in classrooms, nothing more, nothing less, he’d have the cops at his door. Leave the kids alone.

        • ErickMN

          Your paranoia, and insistence on fostering ignorance in our young people, is much more of a threat to children than anything they are taught in schools. Fortuantely, your bizarre ideas are not shared by the vast majority of parents in this country. You may want to reach out for the help you desperately need.

          • Guest

            Spoken like a true propagandist.

          • Tony

            Very weird. I don’t want kids ignorant. I want people to mind their business. It is NOT anybody’s business to talk to kids about sex but the parents. What is “bizarre” about that? It is what everyone believed within living memory, and what almost everybody deep down still believes. Teachers have their humble business to do. Let them do it. It is NOT YOUR BUSINESS to diddle with the sex lives of children. It is NOT YOUR BUSINESS to introduce first graders to their private parts. Mind your business.

            Most parents in this country have been sold sex-ed on the grounds that OTHER people will not do their job in educating their children on these matters. But if you told them tomorrow that sex ed (and sex ed is now “integrated” into the curriculum K through 12) would no longer be considered a part of the school’s business, except for a brief week or so in eighth grade, with boys and girls separate, they would all breathe a sigh of relief. This has not come at the urging of parents. Most don’t like it at all, but think that they have to put up with it.

            You have kids? YOU teach them about sex. It is your business and nobody else’s.

            • ErickMN

              So, your unfortunate children will get all their education about human sexuality from you – including all of your obvious hangups, insecurities and anxieties about the subject (why does sex scare you so much? wow…), and then what they learn on the street/from other kids. Sounds like the perfect recipe for young people who then will make all kinds of bad decisions about their sexual partners and activiites. They will be the ones to pay the price for your ignorance. Sad.

              I assure you, the vast majority of parents in this country do not share your bizarre ideas about sex education. In fact, many of them would call your approach downright foolish and dangerous. Please think about what you’re doing before you hobble your children any more.

              • Art Deco

                So, your unfortunate children will get all their education about human
                sexuality from you – including all of your obvious hangups, insecurities
                and anxieties about the subject

                In my experience, social workers and school administrators have a talent for humbug. If they ever said anything they could be held accountable for, I think they’d advise you that you have an aptitude for admissions against interest (or, perhaps, their legal counsel would tell you that).

              • Tony

                Man, you are something. You don’t know me. And what are you talking about, “sexual partners”? You mean people to fornicate with? Is that what you mean? And when the birth control fails, because it will, or because people make mistakes, then it’s off to the abbatoir to dispose of the unfortunate results? Or you bear the child, but he grows up without a father in the home? Very kind, to buy your hedonism at the price of a child’s life or an intact home.

                There is one overriding earthly purpose in teaching your kids about sex, and that is to prepare them for a joyful marriage and a thriving family. That’s it.

                You are dead wrong, too, if you think that most parents believe that some minor governmental functionary should be playing Sex Instructor with their kids. They put up with it, because they have as much influence upon their schools as a flea upon an elephant.

                But you are here arguing in bad faith. You have no children, and you are not a Catholic, and you are content with the sexual revolution and all the destruction it has wrought upon families, children, and the common good. Anyway, when YOU have kids, then come around and tell me how wonderful it is to entrust their sexual education to some twit of a public school teacher who can hardly teach the subject he or she is hired to teach. It is not THEIR business but yours. You may do it in a way that I might find crazy. That’s your business and not mine.

                • Guest

                  He cannot have kids as two men can never produce a child.

                  • Tony

                    Ah, I see. He didn’t sound like a woman. He sounded like an unmarried man with not the slightest idea about the holiness of marriage and the great goodness of sex: being male and being female, and uniting in marriage.

                    It’s odd … the contradictions can make your head spin. Sex is utterly “private” when you want to kill the kid you’ve made, but it is to be yakked about in public and trivialized in front of little kids by educational apparatchiks. If the slob down the street plays Naming of Parts with your kid, you call the cops (and rightly so), even if he does nothing other than what Miss Priss does with twenty five kids at once, boys and girls together.

                    Meanwhile, they don’t do the humble but necessary jobs we pay them to do.

              • Guest

                Ah yes, the perverts view of “sex”. Anything goes when one is a hedonist.

          • Art Deco

            They had nothing resembling ‘sex education’ when my mother and father and their siblings were in high school (1939-54). Somehow the lot of them managed to produce ten kids all told. Seems they were adequately knowledgeable.

            Christopher Lasch once remarked that the logic of what was commonly advocated in the realm of social policy was to reduce the parent to a traffic cop in a child-rearing enterprise dominated by salaried professionals. Purveyors of ‘sex education’ ca. 1963 were a fusion of haut bourgeois volunteers persuaded that the working-class needed the tutelage of their betters in order to get through life and the salaried social work and mental health trade who fancied that we all needed the services of … the social work and mental health trade. Appropriating the functions of parents was the whole point of sex education, not combatting ‘ignorance’.

            • Guest

              The credentialed misfits are now our overlords. Do as you are told. The relativists brook no dissent.

        • Objectivetruth

          Excellent post, Tony.

  • niauropsaka

    Somehow you failed to make the obvious connection to the rise of democracy as a political norm. If a majority “voice of the people” can rewrite law, then power proceeds from simple populism, propaganda, and the manipulation of the prejudices of the dominant subcultures.

    In such a world, what need has a demagogue for truth? The lie with more voters, soldiers, brutes–more enforcers!–will win, and following truth is dangerous. After a few centuries of this, it becomes natural to politicians and pundits not only to chase popularity over a truth that is unpopular, but to actually believe the popular over the true.

    And if one seeks to defend truth, what defense does one have against those who serve populist prejudice? Even with the best facts, how many voters can we reason out of a position that power politics, not external truth nor actual facts, has “reasoned” them into?

    (N.b.: The primacy of majority opinion is often used to uphold “conservative” biases, which is one reason reformers and freethinkers on the “left” tend to see “right-wing” positions as mere inherited tradition, not as reliable scientific truth–and they are often right.)

  • bonaventure

    Faithful Christians would be themselves a favor to read these words about the contraceptive and homosexualist ideology from Pope St. John Paul II:

             If man can decide by himself, without God, what is good and what is bad, he can also determine that a group of people is to be annihilated. Decisions of this kind were taken, for example, by those who came to power in the Third Reich by democratic means, only to misuse their power in order to implement the wicked programs of National Socialist ideology based on racist principles. Similar decision were also taken by the Communist party in the Soviet Union and in other countries subject to Marxist ideology. This was the context for the extermination of the Jews, and also of other groups, like the Romany peoples, Ukrainian peasants, and Orthodox and Catholic clergy in Russia, Belarus, and beyond the Urals. Likewise all those who were “inconvenient” for the regime were persecuted; for example the ex-combatants of September 1939, the soldiers of the National Army in Poland after the Second World War, and those among the intelligentsia who did not share the Marxist or Nazi ideology. Normally this meant physical elimination, but sometimes moral elimination: the person would be more or less drastically impeded in the exercise of their rights.

             At this point, we cannot remain silent regarding a tragic question that is more pressing today than ever. The fall of the regimes built on ideologies of evil put an end to the forms of extermination just mentioned in the countries concerned. However, there remains the legal extermination of human beings conceived but unborn. And in this case, that extermination is decreed by democratically elected parliaments, which invoke the notion of civil progress for society and for all humanity. Nor are other grave violations of God’s law lacking. I am thinking, for example, of the strong pressure from the European Parliament to recognize homosexual unions as an alternative type of family, with the right to adopt children. It is legitimate and even necessary to ask whether this is not the work of another ideology of evil, more subtle and hidden, perhaps, intent upon exploiting human rights themselves against man and against the family. (bold emphasis mine)

    From: Memory and Identity by John Paul II, (Rizzoli, 2005), p. 10-11.

    • ErickMN

      You don’t have to live like this. Have you considered a USEFUL hobby, like macrame or woodburning?

      • Guest

        Sodomy will never be normal, healthy, or good.

        • ErickMN

          Tell that to the millions of heterosexual couples who practice it every day. Just like me, they’ll all laugh at you for being obsessed with what OTHER PEOPLE do in bed. That, by definition, makes you pathetic. Ha ha!

          • Guest_august

            they wont be laughing when that DAY arrives. And it is coming soon.

          • ForChristAlone

            not all that funny erick but we love you nonetheless

          • Guest

            The truth does not change based on numbers.

          • Objectivetruth

            Sodomy is sick, twisted, perverted, sinful, unnatural whether it’s performed by anyone, Erick.

            • ErickMN

              Not as sick, twisted and perverted as you sitting around all day obsessing about what OTHER PEOPLE do in bed. Could you possibly be any more pathetic? Sodomy includes oral sex, too, genius. Could you possibly be any more uninformed, as well? Wow.

              • Guest

                His can you be so ignorant? The truth of the matter a not changed by your propaganda. Sodomy is evil. All forms. Period. Try and read some on the topic.

                • ErickMN

                  What kind of a total and complete LOSER sits around complaing about what OTHER PEOPLE do in bed? Could you be any more pathetic? Hilarious!

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.,.,

              • ForChristAlone

                Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.,,

              • bob

                He’s right, Erick. The male rectum is the most germ filled thing in nature. Why do you insist on putting your erected penis up. Another man’s rectum? You should thank OT, he’s trying to help you.

                • ErickMN

                  How hilarious that you spend so much time thinking about the rectums of other people! Wow. And sheesh. And double sheesh. Is your life seriously that empty and pathetic? Some heterosexual couples and some homosexual couples choose to engage in anal sex, and some don’t. Beyond that, it’s none of your d*mn business. Get a life, bob.

            • 90Lew90

              It’s also damn good. More of a clench, you know? And do you understand just how good sex is for people? A little exposure to a few germs (assuming there is no disease present but disease has no prejudice against homosexuals) builds immune resistance. Good sex works in the same way as antibiotics. Fact. It stands to reason but I suppose it’s reason that you’re immune to. It’s not only psychologically healthy — a fulfilling, rich relationship of which it forms only a part, however great or small — it strengthens your body too. I’m afraid it’s you, with your upside down, and if I may quote, “sick, twisted, perverted, sinful, unnatural” attitude to sexuality who is just plain wrong.

              • ForChristAlone

                You are deeply loved here Lew

                • 90Lew90

                  Yeah I love you too. Bend over.

                • 90Lew90

                  You are deeply boring.

      • ForChristAlone

        you are being abusive now, erick. please refrain from that.

    • 90Lew90

      Straight from the mouth of a man so steeped in ideology that he can’t see he’s as ideological as the ones he rails against. Typical. Homosexuality is not an ideology and neither is it a “lifestyle choice”. It is a condition of being. I might point out to you that your religion is a lifestyle choice and an ideological one at that. Check mate.

      • bonaventure

        Homosexuality is a sexual perversion that leads a person to build an ideological wall around it, for the sake of justifying it as a “condition of being.”

        • 90Lew90

          “Homosexuality is a sexual perversion…”. Apart from being offensive, this statement has no basis in any kind of fact. Refrain from waving your Bible around. But on the basis of your mistaken belief that homosexuality is a perversion, people have been subjected to every kind of indignity and violence imaginable. There is no ideological intent in gay people organising to protect each other from people like you, who have made pariahs of them for as long as you have been around and who never practice what you preach.

          • Art Deco

            Apart from being offensive, this statement has no basis in any kind of fact.

            It’s a normative statement. Unlike the alternative, it actually is in conversation with facts, in this case the features and purpose of sexual organs and of excretory organs.

            To say an inclination is not a perversion is to offer that there is no purpose to sex other than the subjective moment-to-moment pleasure of the practitioner. I have no doubt there are people in the gay subculture who fancy just that, but you’re still likely to run afoul of the law if you live by it.

            As long as you understand sex as a component of every day domestic relations, and as long as you heed the data of your senses and viscera, the grossness of homosexual carnality is manifest. It’s a project of the age to induce people to forget both.

            • 90Lew90

              There is so much presumption in this that I’m afraid I’m going to put it down to a reflection more of the darker recesses of your own mind than the reality of successful homosexual relations. There are plenty. I’ll get back to you but for now I’ve got better things to do.

              • Art Deco

                Whatever.

                • 90Lew90

                  Whatever is right. What is it about a supposed religion-of-love that keeps making such nasty pieces of work out of its subscribers? There is something wrong with this picture. Right from the get-go Christians have ignored the supposed teachings of Jesus and been a bunch of bothersome, self-righteous nay-sayers with no respect for any culture that had the misfortune to be on their doorstep because of the very great appeal of Christianity to the lowest common denominator of people who wouldn’t know culture if it slapped them. And it would have gone down the pan where it belonged if it hadn’t been for its rediscovery of Greek thought, which — irony of ironies — it stamped out as “pagan”. You’re talking about “ruthless ideology” here? You’re the ones in the jackboots.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    No one has been nasty here. If calling an act which is unnatural “unnatural” is what you consider nasty, then we’re operating with two different definitions of nasty.

              • ForChristAlone

                There can be no successful homo”sex”ual relations becaue the very act is unnatural. Sex is ordered for the procreation of children and that cannot happen between two men.

          • Art Deco

            But on the basis of your mistaken belief that homosexuality is a
            perversion, people have been subjected to every kind of indignity and
            violence imaginable.

            Likely no in any large or systematic way. (The theatrical hyperbole of these sorts of complaints is telling, however).

            • 90Lew90

              Maybe you should acquaint yourself with some proper history about homosexuals. Try the Medieval stuff for “large” and “systematic” examples. Look at what was done to Oscar Wilde or Alan Turing (without whom you and I would not now be communicating and might also all be “speaking German) or Tchaikovsky, just to name three who spring to mind from more recent times.

              • Art Deco

                Try the Medieval stuff for “large” and “systematic” examples.

                You’re free to cite something.

                Look at what was done to Oscar Wilde or Alan Turing

                Wilde went out of his way to get himself raked over the coals in court and Turing was subject to unusual scrutiny as someone with considerable security clearances.

                • 90Lew90

                  Wilde went out of his way to make a point. And you’re presuming that what was done to him was right and just. A minute ago you were arguing that there was no large-scale or systematic persecution of homosexuality. I’ve given you an example from a period of religious dominance and two or three from a period when law derived from that religion was applied against homosexuals. This implies to me both that you know that to persecute homosexuals is wrong, and also that you’ve been just plain wrong in your assertion that there was nothing “large” or “systematic” about it. How much larger or more systematic than law and religion do you want?

                  And depending on your aesthetic sense and temperament, any one of those people could be considered heroes and they were each hounded to death by persecution with full complicity by lazy-minded, prudish, busy-bodies like you.

                  • Art Deco

                    You offered two names of people who ran afoul of the law when consensual sodomy was a crime, one of whom sought out the attention of the courts and one of whom was engaged in cruising while holding security clearances. This is your grand persecution.

                    • Guest

                      Both examples of perverts.

              • Guest

                Neither example makes your point.

                • 90Lew90

                  Let’s précis this. Your cohort doubted that homosexuals had been persecuted down through history: “Likely no in any large or systematic way”, he said. I gave him a couple of examples off the top of my head where religion and/or law had perpetrated just such persecution in both *large* and *systematic* ways. That was the point. The point is made.

          • Guest

            It is absolutely a perversion. This is self evident to any rational person with an uncorrupted mind.

            • 90Lew90

              “Rational” and “uncorrupted”. Does that mean Plato was irrational and corrupted? How about the rest of the Greeks? The pre-Islamic Moors? What are irrational and corrupt are both Christianity and Islam, the latter the more so. I love the way Christians like to try and tag along with Judaism but they are far closer bedfellows to Muslims. But that’s not to let Judaism off the hook either because the other two were spawned in succession from that tradition and together they have amounted to a nightmare for humans. I’m disinclined in the extreme to take a lecture on what is rational and uncorrupted from someone who belongs to the Catholic church and believes that a bit of unleavened bread *literally* becomes the body of some extremely overrated, long-dead loon. I mean… What?! Hah!

              • Objectivetruth

                I will pray for, you, 90Lew90.

                • 90Lew90

                  Don’t bother but thanks anyway.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    It’s OK…..we all need prayers.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    Indulge me Lew, on some thoughts on atheism:

                    I think where I’d have a struggle with being an atheist is trying to cope with the death of of a beloved spouse, parent, or child. For example, I dearly love my wife. She is a big hearted person with much love for others. If she were to suddenly pass, and I were an atheist, I don’t know how I could square that she no longer exists, or I’d never see her again. She is such an example of self sacrificing love, how could that love of hers no longer exist? It wouldn’t make sense, on a deeply core level. The pain of loss would be incredible, there would be something deep inside me pushing back against my atheistic beliefs saying no…….such a wonderful, loving person does exist somewhere else.

                    I think in a quiet, subtle way the loss of a beloved tells us God exists.

                    • 90Lew90

                      Sorry I missed your question. I have suffered loss and suffered it pretty greatly for a man my age. My mother is gone and to be honest, even more painfully, my sister is gone. Death is a part of life. No death: No life. But just because nature and the universe is indifferent, it does not follow that the atheist must be a nihilist. “No mere ape.” We are the universe become self-aware. That’s the very least we can say as fact and I think it’s a wonderful fact. I love the Douglas Adams quote: “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” I don’t need to believe that my loved-ones are somewhere. Neither do I have any reason to believe that they’re somewhere else, other than that it might be nice for me. But really, that’s self-indulgent. I don’t think my view of life makes me callous or diminishes me as a human being. But I do think, from personal experience and simply having my eyes and ears open, that religious belief can (and does) lead to terrible callousness and thoughtlessness and all with a veneer (or delusion if I may use that term) that the perpetrator is acting entirely in the right. Even when he’s an absolute scumbag and knows that also. The short answer is: No death; No life. That’s the fact. Life needs death. I can live with that, being one of the inordinately lucky ones to be alive. All I ask is that the other live ones don’t persecute me on the basis of completely redundant philosophy. Catholicism for instance. Take your sugar pill if you want. Don’t force it down my neck and don’t try to beat me around the head with a box full of it.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.!!!!..

                  • ForChristAlone

                    No, more than just praying for you, we will love you because we are followers of Christ – even if you refuse to open yourself to receiving that love.

                • Guest

                  Pray our Lord continues to purify folks like them.

                  • 90Lew90

                    You go on like you’re convinced effluent is purifying.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.!.!

              • ForChristAlone

                Why, presuming you are not insane, would you come to a Catholic site to castigate Catholics for what we believe?

                • 90Lew90

                  Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I found this site by accident actually. I’d been debating on a Patheos site with someone who contributed here so I came to have a look. And then I came across this poisonous guff and decided to stick my oar in. Nothing insane about that. It’s the beauty of the internet, where nothing is hidden and everybody has a say. The most powerful tool for dissemination of information and encouraging open debate since print. Very swiftly after the Guttenberg Press genie was out of the bottle, your church started its Index of Forbidden Books, which still exists today, and also gave the “imprimatur” (permission to print and/or read) to what it decided was suitable for plebs (you) to read. The Bible of course wasn’t forbidden, but the reading of it was discouraged, lest you go and get the idea that the church is corrupt. Enter Martin Luther and the full human-hating truth of the Bible unleashed. But I digress.

                  The Patheos site I came from is here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.!!!!!!

              • Guest

                The only “evidence” you offer is pagan Greece who were pederasts. How perfect.

                • 90Lew90

                  Yes and it seems your clergy took more than a few lessons from them. But then, their pederasty was culturally accepted. It’s not like they thought it an “abomination” or contrary to the “natural” order. Theirs was one of the most civilised cultures in human history. Their learning and their thought saved Christianity’s bacon, because of the paucity of thought “have no care for the morrow” is likely to produce. So you needn’t go finger-wagging about their pederasty. It is thanks to them that you have a faith to practice.

                  • Guest

                    The clergy at issue were homosexuals. That was the problem. Ancient Greece is your model that is hardly evidence “gay” perversion is normal. It is a terrible deviation. It requires therapy.

                    • 90Lew90

                      No, the clergy at issue were repressed men who were overwhelmingly in charge of boys and that was the problem. This has been worked out and picked over and agreed by psychiatric professionals and judiciaries everywhere it’s been properly investigated. The reason boys got it most was because the male clergy had more access to boys. You CAN NOT try to pass your church’s problem off as a gay thing. You people have tried to blame every damn thing you can think of to avoid laying it where it belongs. Squarely and fairly: with your own church and its hierarchy and its doctrine of celibacy. And in oh-so-Christian a fashion, instead of taking a home-truth, you point the finger at a vulnerable minority which has only really just begun to make progress. I am resisting with all my might the urge to use very strong expletives towards you.

                      Let me tell you something. In my line of work I’ve had the grim task of reading most of the thousands of pages of the four large investigations into abuse by the Catholic church against Irish children, and by extension the abuse carried out in the US, and by extension the attitude of the Vatican, which knew full well what was going on long before the lid was lifted on that can of worms. Another strong expletive. How dare you try to shift the blame. Get your own house in order.

                    • Guest

                      They were all “gay”. That was the exact problem. Do not try and deflect it away. They were gay!!!!!!!

                    • 90Lew90

                      Calm Lew. Be calm. I can give you the reports if you would like. They don’t make for pleasant reading I must warn you. I can’t stand Catholic ostriches. As far as I’m concerned, every one of you catholic ostriches is complicit. Use as many exclamation marks as you want. You are talking out of your hat.

                    • Guest

                      The men in question were practicing homosexuals. Why do you deny the truth?

                    • 90Lew90

                      No why do YOU, sir, deny the truth, which has been established well. With much effort. At a cost of almost 1.4billion Euros to my country, and which the catholic church said it would pay but has yet to do so.

                      In accepting that it has a bill to pay, it accepts the findings of those investigations. This problem was not about homosexuality, whatever you want to tell yourself, which is worth squat after all the psychiatric and legal assessments of both victims and offenders. This problem was about frustrated, often deviant young men who would bonk a tree to relieve themselves, given abundant access and absolute power over little boys.

                      As I said, I’m happy to provide the reports. Witness testimony if you want although I can’t think why anyone would want to read that unless they had to. Maybe you should. And the psychiatric reports on the abusers who were caught. Gay men are attracted to men. Adults. People who have the emotional capacity to sustain a relationship. Paedophiles on the other hand exploit children for their meagre gratification and there is also a measure of psychopathy in that dynamic because they show no concern for how they are going to form the life and thinking of their victims. Your church is riddled with them. SUCK IT UP! Deal with it.

                      Hang your head and leave the institution because it’s disgusting. That’s the least you could do. Your protestations are pathetic. They’re beneath contempt. I doubt you’ve even read this far with your fingers in your ears going la-la-la. Shame on you.

                    • Guest

                      Rubbish. They were, to a person, what you call ” gay”. The reports commissioned in the USA support this, but frankly anyone with a room temperature IQ can figure that out without any so called study.

                      Save your propaganda.

                    • 90Lew90

                      [Edit: Which US reports support that this was all carried out by a bunch of gay conspirators? Citation needed.]

                      Consider the following passages from the CICA report in Ireland, find the source material here http://www.childabusecommission.ie/ . The following is not the kind of activity that any gay person I’ve ever met is into. Like you and I, simply as human beings, we find it revolting. This is your clergy in action (although I doubt you, see-no-evil will even subject yourself to reading it):

                      7.129 In relation to one School, four witnesses gave detailed accounts of sexual abuse, including rape in all instances, by two or more Brothers and on one occasion along with an older resident. A witness from the second School, from which there were several reports, described being raped by three Brothers: ‘I was brought to the infirmary…they held me over the bed, they were animals….They penetrated me, I was bleeding’. Another witness reported he was abused twice weekly on particular days by two Brothers in the toilets off the dormitory:

                      One Brother kept watch while the other abused me …(sexually)… then they changed over. Every time it ended with a severe beating. When I told the priest in Confession, he called me a liar. I never spoke about it again.

                      I would have to go into his …(Br X’s)… room every time he wanted. You’d get a hiding if you didn’t, and he’d make me do it …(masturbate)… to him. One night I didn’t …(masturbate him)… and there was another Brother there who held me down and they hit me with a hurley and they burst my fingers …displayed scar….

                      7.232 Witnesses reported being particularly fearful at night as they listened to residents screaming in cloakrooms, dormitories or in a staff member’s bedroom while they were being abused. Witnesses were conscious that co-residents whom they described as orphans had a particularly difficult time:

                      The orphan children, they had it bad. I knew …(who they were)… by the size of them, I’d ask them and they’d say they come from …named institution…. They were there from an early age. You’d hear the screams from the room where Br …X… would be abusing them.

                      There was one night, I wasn’t long there and I seen one of the Brothers on the bed with one of the young boys … and I heard the young lad screaming crying and Br …X… said to me “if you don’t mind your own business you’ll get the same”. … I heard kids screaming and you know they are getting abused and that’s a nightmare in anybody’s mind. You are going to try and break out. … So there was no way I was going to let that happen to me…. I remember one boy and he was bleeding from the back passage and I made up my mind, there was no way it …(anal rape)… was going to happen to me. … That used to play on my mind.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.!!!

                    • ForChristAlone

                      we known the truth

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.!!!

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.!

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you………….!

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you…………

              • ForChristAlone

                Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you………..

            • ErickMN

              Except for the fact that the entire medical, psychological and psychiartric community calls you DEAD WRONG. Why do you make a habit of posting garbage?

              • Guest

                No, that is false. The political ones in control of those political groups may be biased like you, but authentically educated people reject your propaganda within and without those political groups.

                And they call your posts delusional, a persecution complex, narcissistic, and immature.

                • 90Lew90

                  You’re full of conspiracy-theory garbage. That and a whole lot of other garbage. Take transubstantiation for instance. How about we talk about that.

                  • Guest

                    You want to change the subject because you cannot defend your propaganda. You still grasp on some level your lifestyle is immoral. You seek to end all opposition to it thinking you will finally get relief. It will never happen. The truth is homosexuality is a pathological and spiritual problem. It must be treated properly. It is possible.

                    Whether you accept our position or not why not really prove us wrong? Find a Catholic Church and go before the Blessed Sacrament. It does not matter if you think it is a farce. Go there and ask the question.

                    • 90Lew90

                      I’ll give you some advice. Ask yourself why the previous pope, ol’ Benny, an arch-conservative, retired. “Retired” is a nice euphemism they picked for that move. Ask yourself why he travelled as a head of state — using diplomatic immunity to shield him from criminal prosecution on foreign soil — instead of travelling as the head of the church like his predecessors. Why? Because he knew he was useless to the church if he couldn’t travel. He knew that with every foreign visit he made the chances of his arrest for his culpability in enabling child abuse on an industrial scale would be investigated. Was JP2 as “tired” as Benny? I would say he was more tired, but they wheeled him out at any opportunity. You know international law can’t get you in the Vatican? That was a gift from the fascist Mussolini to the church for its complicity in his crimes. Don’t get me started on the theft of children in Spain under Franco. You simply do not have a leg to stand on. Be glad you’re anonymous because if we were having this argument in a courtroom I’d devastate you.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you………

                    • 90Lew90

                      LALALALALALALALALALA

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you……..

                • ErickMN

                  So, you’re right, and the entire medical and mental health community is wrong? HA HA HA HA! You are a riot! Get some help, and get it now. Sheesh.

                  • 90Lew90

                    These people make me seethe.

                    • ErickMN

                      They make me laugh. It amazes me they get through life being so delusional.

                    • 90Lew90

                      They’re not even funny. There are lots of them. They have clout. They’re a menace. Or rather their stupidity and neediness is a menace.

                    • ErickMN

                      Any “clout” they once had is fading rapidly. Now we get to enjoy their whining and moaning as they are dragged, kicking and screaming, into complete obscurity and irrelevancy. It’s a fun show!

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you…….

                    • 90Lew90

                      No my friend. Assuming you’re American, you should look at the influence the Catholic church has in your country. It’s very subtle (they’ve had a few centuries of practice at this game after all) but it’s very, very powerful. Other than that, look at the pressure their “ambassadors” lay at the UN and for that matter the EU, where this little cabal even got an ear in the drafting of a proposed constitutional declaration. Look here: http://www.concordatwatch.eu/ for the influence they wield and hold onto vigorously everywhere they can get their sticky paws. Don’t be fooled that they’re losing influence. They’re not going away. A bishop says to a representative that it might not be good for him to do this-or-that. Representative says, oh I agree completely Your Grace. This-or-that doesn’t get done. Representative wants to protect his vote. He doesn’t want priests denouncing his ideas from pulpits. Etc… Bottom line: They’re powerful.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Thanks, Lew/Erick. I love you both.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you……

                    • 90Lew90

                      I’m not Erik. And on the persecution question; your church, while becoming extremely, obscenely rich and powerful, has been happy to let you believe that Christians are a persecuted bunch, the better to make them think they needed it. Are you really that gullible? Please tell me you don’t think politics was invented in World War 2 or something. I mean… Come on!!

                      [Edit: Jesus was punished. Not persecuted but punished. He was punished because he was a rabble rouser and a little small time rabble rouser at that. There were a few you call martyrs. They were also rabble rousers. I’m quite willing to accept on a guess that some injustice took place at the time of the martyrs. But it has been established as fact since the 18th century (first by Edward Gibbon) that the church embellished the martyr story massively, the reason for which read above. It has been known by kings and rulers from time immemorial that the best way to control people is to make them afraid and to make them think they need you. See Machiavelli. Your church conspired wholeheartedly in that. If we’re going to coopt the language of truth here, let’s just be courageous enough to look at the history of the institution you associate with, warts and all.]

                    • ForChristAlone

                      I love you, Lew. I only will the good for you.

                    • 90Lew90

                      That’s very nice of you. But can I point out to you that you’re commenting on the article above that has me down as some sort of devil’s child. I don’t believe in your god and I don’t believe in your devil. And I will not be a victim of your faith and what your attitude does to my kind — homosexuals, who let’s face it have been around a lot longer than your Jesus — is damn near intolerable to me. Get to grips with what you believe. Your faith is Middle Eastern. That part of the world has been a quagmire pretty much the whole time since humanity was cursed with its daft beliefs. Everywhere those beliefs spread there has been nothing but brutality. If your god exists he’s not a very nice one. How do you square a circle? Your god is apparently constrained by logic. You can’t get away from this. My suspicion has for a long time been that belief in god is self-serving to the believer. It’s a drug. And no, it’s not harmless. It’s not a victimless crime that you’re indulging in. Not to you, not to me, and not to the world we live in. It’s a poison.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      thank you, Lew. I love you.

                    • 90Lew90

                      What does a masochist say when he’s beat?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      “masochist” I love you , Lew.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you…..

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you….

                    • bob

                      Why? They speak the truth. It looks like they’re just trying to help you.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you…

                    • 90Lew90

                      Stop copy-pasting the same inane rubbish. I’ve answered. If you have anything else to say, let’s have it.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Just one thing, Lew: I genuinely love you.

                • 90Lew90

                  Excuse me but it seems to have passed you by that the belief you’ve swallowed: man made in God’s image — is just about as narcissistic as it is possible to get. Chew on that for a while. And Christians were weaned on their very own, doctrinal, persecution complex. Did you ever hear the one about the pot who called the kettle black? Gimme a break.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Lew, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you..

              • ForChristAlone

                Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you more today than yesteday.

          • ForChristAlone

            Homo”sex”uality IS a perversion of the natural order which some saddled with this disorder have tried to cast as a victim group worthy of sympathy. Abstinence is what is called for.

            • ErickMN

              Every major medical, psychological and psychiatric organization in the western world calls your post GARBAGE and you a LIAR. However, they would certainly be interested in your struggles with your delusions. Get help.

              • Guest

                The same one’s who endorse abortion, contraception, transgender nonsense, and much else? Those political groups with a patina of science? Those propagandists? They are the one’s that changed homosexualism into health based on political pressure.

                • 90Lew90

                  Look up “grocer’s apostrophe” and get back when you’ve learned to punctuate. I’m beginning to get the measure of you.

                  • Guest

                    Save you amateurish critique. I would ask you to grow up but your posts show that is not possible. Part of the syndrome is that the males of your group are immature. That is why you fixate on the same sex.
                    Now run off to your parade.

                    • 90Lew90

                      Parading. Hmmm. That’s quite apt actually. At the moment Northern Ireland (which is where I’m sitting) is getting bumpily over yet another parading season which is particularly troublesome and has been for a few hundred years. That’s Christian parades for you. People get beaten, shot and killed when the Christian parades kick off. Houses get burned. Things like that. No such thing at Pride. Run off to your own parade. Get lynched for all I care. Plague of stupidity.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Lew, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you more than ever.

                    • 90Lew90

                      Now you’re preaching to the choir (as it were). I grew up in catholic Ireland you moron.

                    • John200

                      Lew,
                      Two claims you should drop:
                      1. The other guy is a moron
                      2. You grew up.

                    • 90Lew90

                      Tell you what: Copy the “we Catholics have been” bit, do a ctrl F and paste it in there. See how many times the guy has posted that same message. Then tell me what’s grown-up about him, and what makes me a moron for finding him daft. Then, if you really want to tangle, read the other posts I’ve left here. I can’t say it’s not been heated at some points, but I’m making a point of being decent. OK? This guy has lost the argument. So… spam for Jesus.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      I still love you, Lew

                    • ForChristAlone

                      “moron” …I love you despite your trying to demean me.

              • 90Lew90

                They’re obsessed with the “sex” bit. An unfortunate little linguistic anomaly that they always pick up and run with. Hetero”sex”uality was also once designated as a disorder by the same people who invented the term homosexuality. This passes them by. The beauty of two people loving each other passes them by. All they want to think about is the sex. Does that say more about us or them? Don’t they know that everyone isn’t as obsessed with anuses as them? Apparently not.

                • ErickMN

                  Indeed. People like ForChristAlone clearly think about gay sex more than any gay person I’ve ever met. Hilarious!

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you even more.

                • ForChristAlone

                  Lew, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.

                  • 90Lew90

                    I don’t know if you’re a robot or a sheep or what. But this is usually called spam. And you’ve quite clearly lost the argument.

                    • John200

                      Lew,
                      Your mind is closed. Your “thought” is one-sided. But stick around, troll yourself to sleep. We will open it.

                    • 90Lew90

                      I’m the troll? I’m quite happy to sit and debate and debate strongly. Take that trolling message to your friend “ForChristAlone” who has just copied and pasted the same message at least twenty times in the past hour, flooding this board with spam. Is it not trolling when it’s trolling for Jesus? Give me a break.

                    • John200

                      We ARE giving you a break. You fill the thread with one-sided attacks. When you start to listen, someone will be here for you.

                    • 90Lew90

                      I’ve been “debating” here all day. I’ve been responding to arguments and attacks. This guy has been copying and pasting the same little homily for an hour. Ridiculous. Read the thread. I have to make a pot of soup for an old man. Horrible stinking atheist queer that I am. Who would have thunk it.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Sounds like love to me Lew – making a pot of soup for an old man that is. I love you.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      you troll; we love. and we love you, Lew most of all.

                    • 90Lew90

                      You’re an idiot and you don’t have the balls to even try to debate me. Go take more opium. Nasty little shit.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      “idiot…balls…opium…sh*t” I still will the good for you.

                    • Guest

                      This is the language and mentality of the gay lobby.

                    • 90Lew90

                      After much provocation and mindless arguments, this is the language and mentality of anybody.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      I love you Lew..

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Love is never an argument. We Catholics are not here to “argue” but to love. Proclaiming the Truth is an act of love.

                  • InDogITrust

                    Just for a lark, please tell us who was persecuting catholics between the years 500 and 1500?

              • ForChristAlone

                Erick, we Catholics have been the object of persecution for 2,000 years so it is nothing new to us. In fact, your attempt to demean us and our faith only affords us the opportunity to become perfected in love. Thanks. And, by the way, I love you.

      • Guest

        Relativism mixed with hedonism that is your ideology. You erroneously think just equating two unequal things that it makes them similar. It does not.

      • ForChristAlone

        Homo”sex”uality is a perversion of the the natural order. Choice or not, it requires living abstinently despite one’s same sex attraction.

        • 90Lew90

          In your humble opinion. There are literally thousands of species which engage in homosexual behaviour. Religion is unnatural if we’re going to get into that territory. Language is unnatural. Sex is the most natural thing in the world. Dammit it’s pretty much as natural as breathing. Get over yourself. I don’t care if you’ve been indoctrinated to believe that picking your nose is evil. Think what you like. I’m still going to pick my nose and you have no business dictating to me that I should have exactly the same little peccadillos (or lack of them) as you.

          • ForChristAlone

            I love you Lew

            • 90Lew90

              I’m sorry. I’m glad you love me but I don’t like how you smell. Creep.

            • InDogITrust

              With love like yours, who needs hate?

              • John200

                With hate like yours, we all need love.

                • InDogITrust

                  “Femi-knucklehead troll.” I kinda like that, thanks!
                  Say hi to Jesus for me!

                  • John200

                    Just did; and then you should say it yourself. He will like that quite a bit.

                    Then ask Him what he wants from you. Yikes! That’s the hard part! But He will help you with that, too.

    • Guest

      It is a new ideology of evil as he said.

  • Art Deco

    The sorosphere’s rotated in someone new (and, like Erick, from the 3d string).

    • ErickMN

      How delicious that being challenged makes you squirm. Don’t enjoy having the light shone on your intolerance? Tough.

      • ForChristAlone

        We love you, Erick. Despite your attempts to deflect love, tolerance, patience, and understanding and replace it with what is unseemly, we will continue to embrace you here.

      • Guest

        No challenge, just propaganda and hatred.

      • Objectivetruth

        What light is being shown on our “intolerance?” Expound. This is a Catholic website, we are discussing Catholic moral teaching. We’ve told you we love you, we love all children of God. But we don’t like sin. And homosexual acts are an affront to God. If anything, we are very tolerant of you, so tolerant that we don’t want you spending eternity with Satan in hell. That’s not only tolerance……that’s love!

        • Geoffrey Howe

          I wouldn’t exactly call it love that you don’t want people tortured for eternity, that’s just kinda basic human decency.

          However, why is gay sex something that will end you up in hell? The reason we object is not because of your motivation, but why you have that motivation in the first place.

          Whatever your conception of Hell is, why should people end up there because of gay sex or gay marriage? Because, ultimately, you’re saying gays will end up there, because they are gay. But how does that follow? Please explain to me WHY homosexuals are in danger of Hell.

          And if all you can say is “Because God said so” then you don’t have an argument. Any God who sends people to Hell, or allows people to go to Hell, for ‘crimes’ that don’t hurt anyone is not a nice God. It’s not that you WANT gays to go to Hell that bothers people like us, it’s that you believe in a God that allows it to happen, and continue to think that he’s a good God. That’s offensive to both gays, and to Christians who think that God would never allow someone to go to Hell for loving people in an atypical, but harmless, way.

          • Objectivetruth

            God doesn’t put man in Hell, man makes the choice by turning away from God’s love chooses to put himself in to Hell. The “gay” person that chooses to perform homosexual acts that are contrary to what God willed for the sexual function has made his own choice to say “no” to God and turn his back on God.

            Read below, this will help you with the teaching on Hell:

            http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm

            • Geoffrey Howe

              I am aware of that conception of Hell, hence why I included “Or allows someone to go to Hell” in my post.

              But why should it be that this act results in a turning away from God? Surely there are gay people who wish for God’s love? They are not willingly turning away from God altogether, even if they are willingly disobeying.

              Why can’t God “Agree to disagree” with gay people on this issue? Why is it “Do what I say, or I’ll let that bus hit you”?

              I read that article you linked, and I noted this passage “It is the state of those who definitively reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life.” How is engaging in homosexual sex definitely rejecting mercy? Indeed, even if I accepted that homosexuality were sinful, that article calls Gods mercy infinite. Therefore, homosexuals can ‘sin’ against God in whatever great amounts, but still accept Gods mercy. And since Gods mercy is infinite, no sin is too great for him to forgive.

              The homosexual isn’t rejecting God as a whole, or his mercy. Even if homosexuality were a sin, that means the homosexual is simply rejecting a single command of God. But surely, an infinitely merciful God can deal with that, and not consider such an act an absolute and complete rejection of Him?

              • Objectivetruth

                Thanks for the response. An excellent, thought out one.

                I’ll try to respond later, when I have more time.

              • Objectivetruth

                “The homosexual isn’t rejecting God as a whole, or his mercy. Even if homosexuality were a sin, that means the homosexual is simply rejecting a single command of God. But surely, an infinitely merciful God can deal with that, and not consider such an act an absolute and complete rejection of Him?”

                I think the problem here is (and it’s only my humble opinion) is that someone is saying “I only love you God to a certain point, partially, because I want to hang on to this one sin that I really like.” When you think about it, God doesn’t need us, but we certainly need Him. God can dole out His mercy anyway we want. But if we love God fully, wouldn’t we want to do His will for us all the time? I’ll assume you loved your own earthly father very much. Whenever he asked you to do something, or wanted you to act a certain way, you probably did it 100% of the time. You did it because he loved you and you loved him, and you knew your father only wanted the best for you. The same is with our Heavenly Father. If we love Him so much, don’t we want to please Him and do His will 100% of the time?

                This probably doesn’t answer your question fully, but I believe it all comes down to love for God. We all have to ask ourselves if we really, truly love God, we’d want to discern His will for us and follow it. Easier said than done, because we all fall short of doing God’s will. But God knows what is in our hearts, and if He knows we are constantly striving for Him, He will help us along the way.

                • Objectivetruth

                  (Cont.). Sorry….I’m having IPad trouble and trying to edit! In the second paragraph I mean to say “God can dole out His mercy any way He wants to. Wouldn’t we want to do His will all the time?”

                • Geoffrey Howe

                  I don’t think ANYONE does what their earthly father wants them to do 100% of the time. Teenage rebellion is quite common, and even when the child has matured, it is quite rare that a child and parent agree on everything 100%. A common case is political affiliation. A father and son can easily disagree on Republican vs. Democrat, and not hate each other and never want to be with the other ever again. They may engage in spirited debate with one another, and enjoy each others company for that, or they may simply agree to not discuss politics around one another, as they don’t want their disagreements to spoil their otherwise positive relationship.

                  A person can love God but still disagree with him. And even if you think such a notion is foolish on the part of the human, wouldn’t a loving and merciful God be willing and able to overlook such a thing? It’s not hard to find Christian Parents who disagree with their gay children, but who still want to be with them, and the children still want to be with their parents.

                  If Earthly families can put aside their differences, and focus on their love for one another, instead of the things on which they disagree on, then why can’t a Heavenly Father? There are those who will truly reject God and call him a genocidal monster. But cannot a person love God, and simply disagree with him? You might feel that Christianity means a full acceptance and reliance on God, but that’s just further evidence that humans are imperfect when they fail to accept Gods every command. And Gods infinite mercy should be able to accept that. Indeed, acceptance of humanities failings to perfectly follow Gods command is a large part of Christianity.

                  I am not trying to justify homosexuality here (Although I do not thing there is anything wrong with it) rather my point is simply that mere disagreement with God does not mean absolute rejection of God. To reject a command of God is not to reject God. And if it is rejection of God that causes one to fall into Hell, then it should only be those who consciously reject God, those who say that he is a monster, that should end up in Hell.

                  For those Christians who love God in spite of their disagreements with Him, it is only reasonable that God can love those humans in spite of His disagreement with them.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    But what do you consider “disagreements?” He has made us, for Himself. We are, literally, His. God loves His creation infinitely, and wants us only to be happy, with Him. Disagreeing with God (going against His will) eventually only leads to our own unhappiness. Hell simply doing our will, not God’s.

                    And God has revealed Himself to us, through the Ten Commandments, scripture, through His son, Jesus, through nature itself. He has shown us the way back to Him. If we love The God who created us out of nothing and has given Us everything, how can we disagree with Him? By disagreeing with Him we are trying to make ourselves “gods”, that’s what Adam and Eve did.

                    Great conversation Geoffrey…..thank you! But I must go, won’t be able to post for awhile.

                    But please keep exploring and journeying, you seem very sincere and are asking the right questions. If I might suggest, explore the Catholic Catechism and other Catholic websites. You’ll find them fruitful.

                    Peace.

                    • Geoffrey Howe

                      I know you won’t be able to post for a while, but I’d want to leave this with you. Perhaps you can get back to it some time in the future.

                      My point was to argue with your conception of Hell, or at least the conception of Hell in the link you provided. That it is the result of a ‘Definitive rejection of God’s Mercy’.

                      You said that homosexuals are in danger of Hell. But by that ‘criteria’ for going to Hell, it is not the homosexuality itself that endangers them, but rejection of God’s mercy. I am simply saying that by that conception of Hell, then no amount of gay sex will end you up in Hell. Hell is for those who, upon hearing God say “Now I don’t approve of everything you’ve done, but I forgive you” would respond with rejection.

                      The one who, upon hearing that statement “Well, we have our differences, but I love you anyway, and I’m glad you could look past those differences.” That person still loves God. That person is still accepting His mercy. Therefore, that person is not in Hell.

                      Whatever you might think about the rejection of God’s command is, for this point, irrelevant. It may be foolish and pigheaded, but that is forgivable. Perhaps if homosexuality really is bad for the human condition, God will be able to explain directly. Perhaps show examples. Or perhaps he’ll let the person persist in this one rebellion, until they finally realize that it’s better to not do it. After all, Heaven is eternal. They have all the time in the world, and then some, to come around to Gods point of view. He can be patient.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Good points.

                      I guess, at the end of the day, God knows what’s in our hearts. The Church has never definitely who is in heaven, who is in hell. I think a beautiful sign of His mercy is the doctrine of purgatory. Perhaps, this is where all this is sorted out.

          • Objectivetruth

            St. John Paul II:

            “”Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God’s initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state.”

  • 90Lew90

    I’d recommend this site to any fence sitters (or people who like to debate): http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/

    • ForChristAlone

      We love you Lew and wish desire only your good.

      • 90Lew90

        You what my good?

        • ForChristAlone

          Yes, your good…that all goodness and blessings come your way.

          • 90Lew90

            Awww. Shucks.

            • ForChristAlone

              I love you, Lew

              • 90Lew90

                Bleugh!

  • Harry Underwood

    “And Barro doesn’t go gently, rejecting any notion of “magnanimity” in the dispute over “gay rights.””

    Would it be prudent or wise to ask “magnanimity” of those groups targeted by Jim Crow, slavery and present-day racial animus? Or of those targeted by the Holocaust and anti-Jewish pogroms? Of women denied the right to vote/drive/serve in the military/run for public office/serve in religious positions of power?

    Would it be wise to ask them to be “gracious in victory” when the grievous screwing-over and its after-effects hasn’t yet ceased for many in this world, or even in this country? Or even because this isn’t a matter of “war” but securing the ability to live without fear as an individual?

    If not, why ask it of LGBT people?

MENU