“Progress!” The World’s First Three-Way Gay Marriage

Three homosexual men have “married” each other in Thailand in what is being billed as the world’s first three-way same-sex “marriage.” This was, of course, inevitable. It’s inevitable in every country that redefines marriage as anything but one man and one woman. When the culture’s only standard for “marriage” is that the parties love each other, then all sorts of novel configurations are possible. Look for this to come soon to a country near you.

Under the banner of the gay-rights rainbow, the new cultural revolutionaries are not only redefining marriage but also, to borrow from the popular term of 1960s radicals, “smashing monogamy.” What’s to stop these three non-monogamous married men from taking on added spouses? If three is fine, why not four? Or five?

This is, of course, a blatant I-told-you-so moment. This is what we gay-marriage opponents have been warning about. But it’s especially revealing of something else I’ve warned about for a while.

Those of us opposing same-sex “marriage” for reasons like this were told by gay-marriage advocates that we were nuts. Our claims that the redefining of marriage would lead to polygamous marriage and other arrangements were ridiculed. We were denounced as homophobes and bigots who simply hate. We were not just cold-hearted but hysterical. They shouted at us that they would never advocate arrangements like these. We were crazy to even suggest they would support anything but two gay people marrying one another.

But we know better. Those of us who have studied the ideological train-wreck called “progressivism” know better. We’ve watched how progressives “progress.” The only thing you really know about progressives, and that they know about themselves, is that they’re always changing, evolving. Where they stand now, on any given issue, is, by progressivism’s own definition, subject to change.

I often give the example of Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood. It was launched in the 1920s as the American Birth Control League, with Sanger’s interests being birth control and eugenics. Sanger insisted that she and her organization were against abortion. “It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn,” she wrote in January 1932. “Some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not.”

Yet, for progressives, what began as birth control needed only a few decades to snuff out life after conception. They “progressed” to where Sanger’s organization rapidly became America’s largest abortion provider. And where do “pro-choicers” stand today on abortion? Now they tell you that you must not only support its legalization but pay for it. If you disagree with them, they smear you as favoring a “war on women.”

This is their “progress.” As for those of us who have not changed with them, who even favor positions that progressives themselves once held, we are deemed the extremists. Where progressives start is never where they finish. They can never tell you their ultimate end-goal because their goalpost is always moving. They cannot tell us where they will stand on issues X and Y in 20 years. They will tell us when they get there.

But we do know this much: what is seemingly inconceivable to all of us right now, including to progressives themselves, can become the dogmatic position of progressives in a generation. The once-unimaginable absurdities become reality, and when they do, the progressive shrugs and then shouts—at you. If you suggest that a certain impossible position might become progressives’ position in, say, the year 2035, they will laugh, insisting they could never hold such an intolerable stance. Alas, when they arrive at that position in 2035, they will tell you that you are the crazy one; more than that, you are the vile extremist for disagreeing with their newfound, enlightened position. And they will attempt to force your compliance under the coercive power of the state.

They’ve done this with abortion and are doing the same with marriage. Give progressives the power to redefine marriage—once the province of nature and nature’s God—and there will be no end to the redefining. The definition will always be in a state of progression.

Worse, in the ultimate tragedy, this progressive rot, this dangerously addled “thinking,” is now pervading a larger secular world that has lost God and lost its dedication to moral absolutes. “When God does not exist,” said Dostoyevsky, “everything is permissible.”

That brings me back to what happened in Thailand. As soon as I saw the article on the man-man-man marriage, published in Britain’s Daily Mail, I immediately went to the readers’ comments (i.e., popular perception) to confirm my worst expectations of modern humanity. Yes, it would be wonderful to go to the comments and find serious mea culpas, “Wow, the conservatives are right! Our support of gay marriage is leading to this craziness! OMG!” or “I hate to admit it, but opponents of SSM were right all along. This is going to make a mess of marriage and the family.”

No, sorry. That is not how these minds operate. Remember: When they finally “progress” to the state they once swore impossible, and had once attacked you for even suggesting they’d arrive there, expect no apologies or reevaluating. No, expect them to be on board for the latest permutation. Expect them to applaud the next destination in the cultural train-wreck. And, of course, expect them to (yet again) denounce you as an uncaring brute.

Anyway, to that end, here were some of the readers’ comments posted at the Daily Mail article:

The first, ironically, came from a Puerto Rican man named Elijah, who is indeed a prophet for our times. He wrote of the new three-person couple: “I’m happy for them. I hope the day comes when we can all love as freely as we can and be recognized by our world laws.”

Here’s a comment from someone named Louis in South Africa, another herald of the times, who is inspired to give thanks to the Creator who made them male and female: “Thank God for these people—the world needs more love. All the best to them and many, many years of happiness. They make a beautiful marriage. May they experience God’s favour in their lives every day of their lives and I hope they have a big family one day to share in their love!”

From Nicky in Australia: “Good luck to them hope they r happy :)”

From another person Down Under: “The heart wants what it wants. I hope they’re happy together.”

And note this assessment from Laura in the UK, whose ambivalence gives way to the it’s-okay-if-they’re-happy standard that now defines marriage: “I’m all for gay marriage … but 3 people getting married to each other? I just don’t understand how that can possibly work. And how you could love two people equally as passionately as you would if you were to marry one person. If it works for them and they’re happy then fair enough but [it’s] all very bizarre!”

Spot on, Laura, that’s the progressive spirit!

Those examples are pulled from only the first roughly dozen comments. I didn’t look for more. It’s too depressing.

But, in short, there you go. They’re on board. All aboard the exhilarating train of progress! No apologies, no regrets.

What’s the next stop in this three-way same-sex “marriage?” What’s the next progression? It will be the adoption of children. And if you object to that, then you will be excoriated as an intolerant obscenity of a human being.

After all, proponents will insist, why can’t three married men raise kids just as good as a married man and woman? They can put a roof over the kids’ heads, take them to soccer practice, make them dinner, wash their dishes, get them out of bed and on the bus, pay their college, and on and on. And if you object that a three-married-man trifecta is not an ideal model of virtue, morality, chastity, purity, parenthood, fatherhood, motherhood, and, dare I say, manhood, then you will be judged a loathsome creature.

This, my friends, is secular progressivism. It is at long last coming to full fruition in an increasingly post-Christian world. Thailand today, America tomorrow. Welcome to its glorious train-wreck. Let the cultural carnage commence.

(Photo credit: Caters News Agency)

Paul Kengor

By

Paul Kengor is Professor of Political Science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and author of many books including The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor and Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage (2015). His new book, A Pope and a President explores the extraordinary relationship between Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and their joint effort to defeat Soviet communism.

  • ForChristAlone

    “Coming to a theatre near you this summer.” (sneak previews in select locations like the Castro District and the West Village). Supreme Court reviews to follow.

    Here we go; it was predictable (with emphasis on preDICtable)

  • Objectivetruth

    I have to chuckle looking at the picture, that one of the trio in the “wedding” is wearing white!

    This whole thing has to be viewed as the freak show it is. The “gay” community doesn’t want marriage, in their sinned warped minds they only choose to mock God’s will.

    Evil is as evil does.

    • LarryCicero

      Is the one in white the bride?

      • Who threw the bouquet?

        • LarryCicero

          The best man?

        • LarryCicero

          Hundreds of comments posted since I asked a simple question-not one attempt at an answer. Makes me chuckle too.

      • Jacqueleen

        I thought white stood for purity?????

        • PixilDot

          In Asia, White symbolises death…. so this is kind of funny…

    • .
      Read your Bible for history of multiple partner marriages, @Objectivetruth:disqus.
      .

      • Simple & Plain

        Indeed. Just because God didn’t smote down people with several wives doesn’t mean it was condoned. It wasn’t meant to be since Genesis 2, and was ended with Christ.

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen..,..

    • Kara Connor

      You realize that they aren’t actually legally married, right? Thailand doesn’t even have two-person marriage equality. They are joined only in a religious, Buddhist ceremony, which is not recognized in Thai law. Are you in favor of curtailing the right of religious institutions to have their own rules on marriage? I thought you’d favor religious freedom.

      • John Platko

        Well I didn’t realize that just skimming the article. Thanks for pointing that out!

        • Lutesuite

          Well I didn’t realize that just skimming the article.

          You wouldn’t find it by skimming the article. Nor even by carefully reading it in depth. Because this article makes no mention of that. You’d have to go to the original article reporting the story in the Daily Mail. It’s hard to imagine a publication with lower standards than the Daily Mail, but here it is.

          As to whether this was a mere oversight, or deliberate mendacity on the part of Crisis Magazine, we can only speculate….

          • John Platko

            I simply can’t bring myself to carefully read any more of these kinds of articles.

            • Lutesuite

              I simply can’t bring myself to carefully read any more of these kinds of articles.

              You’re a wise man.

              Thankfully, they will soon be as rare as articles advocating the return of slavery.

              • Dillon Francis

                collapse of the west will mean the collapse of perverts like you and the other fagitos.

                • Lutesuite

                  collapse of the west will mean the collapse of perverts like you and the other fagitos.

                  Ah, yes. Another well-reasoned and not at all bigoted response. Keep it up, guys.

                  • Dillon Francis

                    Don’t need to reason with perverts.

  • Rev Mr Flapatap

    I went to Macy’s to pick up some martini glasses and when I walked by the bridal registry area, the wedding photo behind the desk was of two men.

    • Asmondius

      Macy’s submerged into the cultural morass long ago..
      .
      They permit store restrooms and dressing rooms to be used by anyone who thinks their particular ‘gender identity’ doesn’t match their physical body, and in fact have chastised and/or terminated employees who foolishly tried to prevent males from entering the ladies’ dressing room.

    • Why would you go to Macy’s? Price alone dictates shopping elsewhere.

    • mitch64

      Macy’s is engaging in the capitalistic marketplace and responding to a new potentially lucrative market…that’s as American as it can get!

      • GG

        That is a view of Americanism that is not authentic. It is devoid of morals. It is consistent with the gay agenda.

        • mitch64

          Really GG??? Capitalism is consistent with the “gay agenda.” (apparently my copy was sent to your house by mistake as I haven’t gotten it after all these years..) I actual like that! But also, lets go through our history or American capitalism and see how many corporations have actually lived up to “your,” opinion of what is authentically American.

          • GG

            Capitalism is not simply might makes right or money above all else. That is the gay way though.

            You do not need a copy. It is self evident in your posts.

            • mitch64

              “Might makes right” is the gay way? I thought we were all a pack of “effeminate,” sub humans?

              You do know a lot about the gay agenda and the gay way , not to mention the definition of capitalism and what is “American,” all of your own definition. Could you spell out the gay agenda please? I already know its to destroy anything Christian…right? (not that there are any gay Christians….there can’t be right, they wouldn’t want to destroy their own faith..right????)

              • GG

                Without moral truth we end up where you want us to go. Money and orgasm as gods are the agenda.

  • William Murphy

    There are so many bizarre causes hiding just off-stage that it is impossible to predict which one will emerge from the wings as the next taken-for-granted “progressive” novelty. Two obvious candidates are hot contenders.

    First up is polygamy. Yes, even in England, where I live, polygamy is still technically illegal. But de facto polygamy, funded by taxpayers, is steadily spreading. Obviously full blown polygamy, where one guy has to pay for X wives and Y children out of his own earnings, is horribly expensive – you really need limitless public funds, extorted by law from the innocent, to help you out. You cannot have two wives at once and claim Social Security for both. But you can claim for your legal wife, and your concubines can legally claim for themselves and their children as single mothers. So why not skip all this typically English hypocrisy and evasion and go for fully recognised polygamy for an unlimited number of spouses? One estimate put the number of de facto polygamous households in Britain as 20,000 already, though it is impossible to be precise. Many are obviously in Muslim areas. But the benefits are open to anyone of any background.

    Next up is paedophilia. Yes, being a practising paedophile is still technically illegal. And being a known paedophile is still an invitation to public outrage, vigilante assault and possibly murder in many areas. But tireless campaigners in several countries have being pushing for decades to get the age of consent lowered or abolished. Check out Mary Eberstadt’s classic article “Pedophilia Chic” from 1996. One or two more pushes and this could be legal. And the police would be obliged to protect the practitioners from the vigilantes.

    What coherent argument have the “progressives” got to resist the next “advances” when they have already conceded so much so easily?

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      “polygamy is still technically illegal”

      This can give rise to some interesting questions. In Scotland, we recently had a case where two Pakistani citizens married in Pakistan. The marriage was potentially polygamous. They settled in Scotland and separated. The Benefits Agency raised an action to compel the man to aliment the woman. The man claimed that, being potentially polygamous, their relationship did not amount to a marriage recognised in Scots law. The current situation is that the Sheriff Court granted aliment “aye and until a permanent arrangement of the rights of the parties shall be made by a competent Court,” leaving the question to be decided by the Court of Session.

      • William Murphy

        Thanks very much, Michael. The countless absurdities which arise once you abandon Christian marriage are enough to make your head explode. Trying to make every other country in the European Union recognise British lunacies in this area should be even more entertaining.

  • john

    This is an odd case, but there is an even larger problem out there. In one of the world’s major religions (with 1 Billion adherents), polygamy is both legal and fairly common. What will the Progressives do when American Muslims begin to demand that we tolerate their age-old definition of “love”? THIS debate is coming to the USA very soon indeed.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      The question already arises quite often.

      When citizens of one country, say Algeria, enter into a marriage there that is actually or potentially polygamous and then come to settle in, say, France, where marriage is strictly monogamous, the courts have to ask themselves whether the relationship between a man and the ladies living under his protection in a polygamous union is sufficiently analogous to the relationship of husband and wife, as described in the Code Civil, to make it just to apply the same rules to them. Otherwise, there is a real danger of the courts creating obligations, rather than enforcing them.

      The same question can arise in relation to succession to moveable and immoveable property, the owners of which are citizens of and domiciled in a foreign country

      No jurist has suggested there is an easy answer to this.

      • Terry Mushroom

        Michael
        Plus in the UK, if not France, there is the interesting question of benefits and social housing.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          As far as benefits and social housing go, there is usually only a problem where the marriage is actually, and not merely potentially, polygamous.

          When the marriage is merely potentially polygamous, because the man in fact only has one “wife,” then whether she is a wife or a cohabitee is largly iirrelevant to the Benefits Agency and Local Authority Housing Departments.

          It is consistorial and inheritance cases that her status becomes an issue. Was the arrangement that the couple signed up to what we in Europe understand by “marriage” or something else?

      • Jacqueleen

        They should be denied immigration into that country..because they just don’t comply with the law….This is straight forward and simple….Why do courts make it complicated? The judges continue to write politically correct law interpretations…….not necessarily the truth.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          The same problems arise when citizens of another country own assets – property and investments – in the EU, without, perhaps, ever setting foot here. On their death, how are these assets to be distributed and who has succession rights? A huge amount of residential and commercial property in London is owned by citizens (and rulers) of the Gulf States.

          • Jacqueleen

            Going to a country where one owns property is nothing more than a visit….Then, if that is not satisfactory to the property owner, then he/she should sell the property and buy in their own hometown in their own country…The rule in Real Estate is buy where you know the politics and the lay of the land, so to speak. All expired Visas must be followed up which unfortunately, they are not here in the States under this administration…

            • Michael Paterson-Seymour

              The vast majority of foreigners who invest in the London property market do not even visit. They instruct brokers to buy and manage on their behalf.

              Countries looking for inward investment will adapt their laws to make them attractive to overseas investors

      • Hard cases make bad law.

    • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

      They don’t need or want ‘our’ government approval. They put all the other wives and their kids on welfare. They do this NOW in U.S. and Europe in great numbers.

      • Jacqueleen

        I agree. They say, “I divorce you” 3 x and move on to the next…while wife #1 and the children go on welfare….they they repeat and repeat…That is why they are multiplying and will soon be in the majority..Not a shot fired nor a punishment imposed.

        • Kim58

          And if Christians weren’t so in love with contraceptives we would be the ones multiplying instead…

          • Jacqueleen

            CORRECTION: If Christians had jobs….instead of the law breakers, the illegal trespassers, who are benefiting by Obama’s $3000 incentive to Corporations to hire illegals over Americans, they would be able to afford the children without the abuse of welfare. Those with an agenda always take advantage of “freebies.” Relative to the rapid increase of Muslims in the world, they are allowing us by means of welfare to pay for our OWN DEMISE. Kinda smart, don’t you think! And the world is letting them get away with it!

    • That debate is not coming here. We did something very cruel to American Muslims — we made them capitalists. They have no desire to do anything but conform.

      • “We did something very cruel to American Muslims — we made them capitalists. ”
        So says the guy that brandished his credentials as a former CEO.

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        I seem to have read an article some time back about Muslim polygamy in Florida. The American Muslims who practice polygamy (and there are quite a few, apparently) do so as secretly as possible… for now. But it will be out in the open soon, with Muslims and Mormons… and “gays.”

        • GG

          Exactly. Then, the same propagandists who now say that it will not happen will just move the bar lower and use the same argument.

    • First it’s opprobrium, then an oddity, then an option, then obligatory.

  • Mongo

    Crazy. Soon to be coming to the U.S. as dictated by ginsburg and her girlfriends – kagan, sotomayor, breyer, kennedy etal, BUT ONLY AFTER THE IMPOSITION OF THE ENTHUSIASTIC ACCEPTANCE AND APPROBATION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND HIS FAVORITE POODLE MANDATED BY THIS SAME GROUP.
    Stupidest populace in the cosmos(es?), crying on the shoulders of people like this for social guidance. Just how stupid can people be?

    …don’t answer that.

  • publiusnj

    This is what happens when one trusts such a clearly inadequate and partisan entity as the Government to make decisions on such a serious issue as marriage. It used to be that the US Government (the model for all those up and coming emerging markets) knew and respected its limits.

    Then the courts took baby steps to control the culture and as that went on –in the name of Freedom–the Government became bolder and bolder. Governments want to control everything because their one overarching imperative is to remain in power. By controlling all issues in total, a Government can make diktats to apportion its “benefits” as it sees fit so as to cobble together the majority needed to stay in power by virtue of the oldest governing principle of all: divide and conquer.

    The US Government was able to split Christianity (Catholic versus Protestant) on the first religious freedom/establishment issue to come before it: aid to Catholic schools. Once that proved a successful way of splitting the dominant Christian culture, the politicians knew they had a new “jurisdiction” they could exploit: moral questions. They then moved on to Divorce and Birth Control in the Early 1960s and have not looked back since.

    • “This is what happens when one trusts such a clearly inadequate and partisan entity as the Government to make decisions on such a serious issue as marriage. It used to be that the US Government (the model for all those up and coming emerging markets) knew and respected its limits.”

      Two things:

      The idea that marriage was a civil arrangement of the state was pioneered in Europe, with two particularly odious moral cretins: Henry Tudor and Martin Luther-one a libidinous, murderous porcine interested in his power; the other a man interested in diminishing the power of the Church. The first requirement for civil marital licensure was in MPS’s belowed France.

      The division of Christianity is a European “innovation”, not a U.S. one.
      This is the culmination of a five centuries old design by the diabolical to introduce disorder; and states run amuck is a world-wide phenomonon.

      • John Flaherty

        If we can agree that the divisions of Christianity began in Europe, we cannot agree that such a division came exclusively from Europe. Notions about “the bible alone may judge” came to the US and have wrought plenty of havoc here too.

        • “we cannot agree that such a division came exclusively from Europe.”

          And who wrote that it was exclusive. I said it was a European “innovation”. That doesn’t preclude mimicry or replication.

          Now who is the “excellent example”?

          • John Flaherty

            “‘The division of Christianity is a European “innovation”, not a U.S. one.”

            That didn’t look to me as though you had any intent to admit that we’ve seen plenty of innovation here in the US.

            • What I wrote was clear and limited. If you choose to impute other intentions or connotations based soley on personal speculation, that’s an “excellent example”.

              • John Flaherty

                Hmm. I understand what you meant, I think. Unfortunately, the first major division in Catholic belief didn’t come from Europe.

                • Of course there were other heresies and schisms, and the divide between East and West.

                  However, PNJ addressed a division between Catholics and Protestants, not between East and West. That rupture occurred in Europe, and when the nonsense started here, it began when our chattering classes went to Europe to be “trained” in Prussian public administration.

                  • John Flaherty

                    I can’t agree that the Catholic/Protestant rupture began with any particular event in America’s history. Our ancestors didn’t “replicate” anything, so much as they brought the Protestant “innovation” with them. This nation, the United States of America, has never reflected Catholic belief any more than the Protestant majority would ever tolerate.

                    • It wasn’t a particular event. The record that progressivism emerged from the “social gospel” is

      • publiusnj

        I understand that Henry Tudor and Martin Luther–and people a lot earlier than they (e.g., Moses did something on marriage/divorce he should not have)–also did things to expand state control and power, but I was more focused on the catastrophic changes that have occurred since the 1947 Everson Decision. Although that too was awhile ago, it still happened within my lifetime and was the harbinger (and ratio decidendi) of the attacks that have gone on since the 1960s. The difference between what our US politicians have been doing and what Henry Tudor did is that Henry did things in the name of his imperial will, while our US politicians exercise their destruction in the name of supposed “freedom.”

        • Isn’t there some political theory that suggests that as a society becomes more autocratic and tyrannical, the ruling class peddles libertinism as a diversionary balm to distract the great unwashed masses from their loss of authentic ordered liberty?

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            Lord Acton traces it back to Augustus: “The Cæsarean system gave an unprecedented freedom to the dependencies, and raised them to a civil equality which put an end to the dominion of race over race and of class over class. The monarchy was hailed as a refuge from the pride and cupidity of the Roman people; and the love of equality, the hatred of nobility, and the tolerance of despotism implanted by Rome became, at least in Gaul, the chief feature of the national character.”

            Despotism is seen as the guarantee of equality, for where the central power is weak, it is feared the secondary powers will run riot and oppress.

  • AcceptingReality

    First of all, there seems to an awful lot of confusing unbridled sex with love. Secondly, no way this “relationship” lasts. Jealously will lead to pain, suffering and who knows what else that will bring this to an end soon enough. Thirdly, what you say about progressives accusing those who don’t “evolve” along with them as being hate filled and homophobes, etc, is true. Happens to me all the time. All I have to do is say I don’t agree with the current trends on marital thought and “bam” here comes the namecalling…..

    • Chi Rho

      Name-calling happens because they don’t have an Argument and know they will fall on their Arse if they are challenged and the Issue is discussed.

      • When the substance of an argument is deficient, no contrary views can be countenanced, which is why it must be advanced with repetition and ferocity.
        It also explains the constant troll vigilance here.

        • Holy smokes

          I agree. In my observation Argumentum ad populum is consistently brandished as a coercive method toward the truly just. I wish I could troll as much as you do.

          • Some people make up for their lack of volume with a single comment.

            • John Flaherty

              You would seem to be an excellent example.

              • With 2100 plus comments, and one devoid of substance, you might be both.

  • Asmondius

    They couldn’t bear to leave their friends behind.

    • JRDF

      Grammar lesson: “friends” is plural, while “friend’s” is possessive.
      I assume you meant both! good one!

      • Asmondius

        Bingo! A sleight of hand for the sake of the censor.

    • Marc L

      A thousand upvotes for you!

      • Asmondius

        Thank you kindly!

    • Martha

      I can never unread that!

      Smacks of Spinal Tap. 😉

  • Keith Cameron

    What a dystopian world we are leaving our children. A world where the deviant is sanctified and the sanctified is vilified.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      It’s Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, sadly.

      • MIxed with Pamela Sargent’s equally dark, but less well known “Shore of Women”

      • Jacqueleen

        Leave off the “Brave”….more like cowards to me.

    • And the first new Star Wars SSA character. Nothing like destroying good ol’ American mythos with the vagaries of political propaganda. Not to mention the comic book heroes getting to reflect the same madness.

      As the gods go, so go men.

    • .
      But they are YOUR children, @disqus_ghy9hcCRFO:disqus — where do you think gays come from (doh!)?
      .

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.,.,

      • Keith Cameron

        I firmly believe that Gays are Mentally Ill.

        • GG

          Indeed.

        • Philip Lishman

          Their condition might reasonably be described as a disability. Reproductive dysphoria, perhaps one might call it.

        • The Truth

          It was considered a mental illness. but I guess if enough people become “mentally” ill it no longer is.

    • E.J.

      “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
      Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
      The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
      The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
      The best lack all conviction, while the worst
      Are full of passionate intensity.” -William Butler Yeats, “The Second Coming”

      • csd

        And why has the center not held? Each time a hateful word is spoken, or a child starves when she could be fed, or when a child becomes collateral damage, or a father or mother is ostracized because he or she is of a different ethnic group, religion, or country that center weakens; every time a black man’s told there are no jobs when there are plenty, or an Arab is called a raghead or sandni—r, when a Catholic is told he’s a fascist, a Protestant a heretic, a gay man that he’s a freak, and a lesbian a b–l d–e with a warped mind that center weakens. “Pass no judgement, and you will not be judged; do not condemn and you will not be condemned; acquit, and you will be acquitted; give, and gifts will be given you . . . for whatever measure you deal out to others, will be dealt to you in return.” Luke 6: 37-38

        In reading the entire section of comments after this article, several things seemed clear: first, the animosity, which was supposed to be occasioned by the issue of “gay marriage” seemed in actuality to exist because homosexuals do; second the vitriol directed at those favoring gay marriage became increasingly vicious and cruel as the “debate” went on, and by the end, that cruelty was being reciprocated.

        Through the whole row, no one once explained how gay marriage would affect heterosexual marriage . What will happen, precisely, to the institution of marriage as it’s existed, I won’t say since its inception–it’s gone through too many permutations–but at least in its more recognizable western iteration? Divorce hasn’t killed it, which many thought would happen in the nineteen sixties and seventies, yet the institution thrives, so much so that homosexual couples wish to join in.

        Perhaps the worry is that in changing the recent marriage construct to include homosexuals western civilization would begin that slide down the slippery slope to legalization of pedophilia or bestiality, or polygamy? Though some discussing this topic seemed to argue that, even after homosexual marriage was legalized, no other western civilized government has moved to condone such things (not even in Utah where polygamy is more than notion to be shocked by) that didn’t seem to allay fears over the slippery slope–one might safely say that, should pedophilia and bestiality be decriminalized, many of us would lock up our children and animals, for surely that is the concern, or? Otherwise, we would only be interested in the issue because the thought so appalls us, is so foreign to us that we seek to punish those who indulge in it. Protection, not persecution is the main objective, right?

        All parties involved in this dispute need to recognize, and make some attempt to empathize with the fears of the opposition (both gay marriage advocates and opponents.) It is so hard to love those so different from ourselves, as Christ says we should do, not only that, in fact, but he goes further, and says we should love those who hate us (and maybe those we hate?). Then, he drags us even further from the comfort zone; he hits us in our pocketbooks (ouch) saying, if a man asks for your coat, don’t just give that to him but give him the shirt off your back, even if he’s what you think of as a despicable human being. We know these verses, but as Christ also said, it’s difficult to accept them, even for the Pharisees and Sadducees, who, while able to quote the law backward and forward, cared not a whit for love and justice, said Jesus. And what were the most important commandments: according to Christ, only love of God out-ranked love of neighbor. Treat them as you’d wish to be treated, he said, among other things. We all want that, if we’re honest.

        Maybe we should remember what Jesus said about the blind and deaf boy having been made thus so Christ could heal him; call it to mind every time some nasty hurtful thing wells up in the throat, or begins to take shape in the imagination as something to do to those we just don’t get. We don’t know why God has made us all so different from one another–perhaps it’s to test how well we treat the one so unlike ourselves.

        Until I was in my late teens, my eyes were crystal clear with just the barest hint of blue; one day, a black speck in my right eye seemed to have appeared overnight. Glaringly obvious though it was only a speck. Of course, I couldn’t help think of Christ’s admonition, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye, with never a thought for the great plank in your own?. . . You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s.” Maybe my own black speck has made me more circumspect about doling out criticism, I don’t know.

        But when, after years of good fortune, an avalanche of misery (that began after an auto accident) led to decades of pain, financial and professional collapse, it did a real number, not just on me but on my family. It took more years than I like to admit to overcome genuine ill will toward the man responsible for the 20 ton truck that ran into me, toward his insurance company, and the attorney who represented not so much the man as the insurance company and did anything he could–even a few illegal things we suspect–to absolve his client of all legal responsibility for my injuries; they were responsible for wrecking my, my husband’s and our daughter’s future. But that misery taught me that we never know what shapes another human’s life, his soul, his mind and character, what makes him chose or reject a path. And for those who identify themselves as “believers,” it seems to me that we are very close to the ultimate blasphemy to think we know enough about that soul to sit in judgement of it. That job belongs to another authority, one that knows our loves, our fears and our histories.

  • Kim58

    When you have the vast majority of Catholics in favor of deliberately sterilized sex within marriage, why are we surprised to see now the acceptance of sterilized sex within other types of “marriages”. I’ll help with the culture war when Catholics start to make the connection that birth control inevitably leads to approval of sterile sex in marriage leads to gay marriage leads to three-way gay marriage, which leads to who knows what next. Until Catholics see the light, the fight for one man/one woman marriage is a losing cause. And laws won’t help people see the light…only Christ can help them see the light, so passing laws to prohibit contraceptives, or divorce or abortion won’t solve anything until hearts are changed.

    • Holy smokes

      It is the same old story repeated time and time again throughout history. The people lose faith over time (today it is called progressivism), all types of depravations appear, the truly just suffer, war breaks out, and finally the faithful triumph (because all the suffering of war brings everyone to their knees). The human race never really learns until it suffers. I pray that this vicious cycle will end soon.

      • .
        Jesus as reported was progressive.
        .

        • Holy smokes

          Really? When was Jesus first reported as progressive? I believe he was reported as a prophet, and by his opponents, an insurrectionist. After He rose from the dead, He was reported as The Messiah. Progressive is a label you currently use for our Lord. I still call him The Messiah. Please comment.

        • ForChristAlone

          EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
          spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
          Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
          terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
          imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
          mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
          sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
          discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
          vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
          in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
          Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
          Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.,,,

    • HigherCalling

      Contraception erases the significance of maleness and femaleness in sexual behavior. With openness to new life denied as the primary purpose of sexual behavior, contracepting heterosexual couples have no moral or philosophical foundation from which to criticize same-sex “marriage”. The relentless push for s-s”m” is merely the latest realization of the contraceptive mentality (preceded, of course, by the legalization of abortion). Accepting sterility as a sexual virtue is how the culture of death enters into the Christian mindset.

      http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/dennehy_homoscontrac_aug07.asp

      • .
        I have a few points to bring facts in to replace your errant opinion, @HigherCalling:disqus:

        Contraception eliminates conception and attendant fear.

        Maleness and femaleness have nothing to do with male and female, or contraception.

        Sexual behavior, like eating food, is primarily for pleasure.

        Abortion is a timeless practice legal or not.

        Same sex marriage is the latest realization of the basic human desire to partner and build a family.

        You are the sole source of a culture of death — no one else knows what you are talking about, as such a thing does not exist outside your fearful mind … I do have a suggested remedy if you care:

        Love.

        Only love.
        .

    • .
      Single parenthood is the greater choice.

      Neither sterile nor sexless nor marriage nor religious or not nor hetero or homo.

      No one has to fight for one man/one woman marriage, it’s a readily available choice that no one is clamoring to eliminate.

      Why do you ignore the dominant experience and instead focus only on your own personal inaccurate inappropriate fears, @Kim58:disqus?
      .

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.++++===…

  • Leo Flanagan

    So it is all about Equality.
    A much abused word to be used as a battering ram by MSM and their fellow travellers here.
    Its use highlights that this pretend SSM stuff is based on lazy neo marxist ideological thinking and a distortion of truth and natural law

    As when the female of the species can give birth, the male of the species may wish to but can’t.
    As when the female of the species can breast feed her young, the male may wish to but he can’t.

    The revolutionaries high jacked the word during their Reign of Terror; their slogan Equality, Liberty and brotherhood was used to telling effect when heads were being cut off.

    Today’s Ministry of Truth won’t be cutting off any heads. The gullible will be nurtured and conditioned by the MOT and MSM that black is indeed white.
    These poor gullibles haven’t the wherewithal to tell the emperor he has no clothes.

    • .
      Welcome to this side of the Atlantic, @leoflanagan:disqus, where every man is their own king, and every woman, too.

      There is no emperor, or pope here.
      .

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.++===++

  • Billy

    “Progressivism” reveals itself to be “regressivism” yet again

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    That is not a marriage, that is a pornographic jigsaw puzzle. Sorry, my standup comic youth in NY is coming back to haunt me.

    • Jacqueleen

      More commonly known as an “orgy”.

      • .
        Orgy … a frequent heterosexual practice, often in the Vatican during the reign of lay Pope$.
        .

        • CarlsPatrick

          Where’s your proof of it?

        • ForChristAlone

          EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
          spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
          Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
          terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
          imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
          mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
          sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
          discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
          vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
          in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
          Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
          Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.+++….++

  • elarga

    Enough already with the gay stuff! We’re beating a horse that was already DOA. Let it go. We’re right, they’re wrong.

    • Crisiseditor

      If our goal was merely to preach to the choir, then you’d have a point. But that’s not why we are here. Share the articles with those who DON”T think we’re right. Maybe we’ll turn things around.

  • And it was even more inevitable in an asian country where they’ve been aborting female babies for 30 years.

    • Holy smokes

      That is an interesting observation. Perhaps a correlation exists between abortion and increasing rates of SSA. Possible case studies could be India and China. I was unaware that Thailand demographics demonstrate a similar sex imbalance due to abortion or female infanticide.

      • The antinatalists always reduce sexual acts to their hedonic component.

        • Holy smokes

          Of course! Babies are an inconvenient outcome of that said contraceptive component.

          I believe the normative argument (about the correlation) can be articulated. The trick would be the empirical portion, a sociologically challenge to say the least, yet useful, especially to Europe, which is committing demographic suicide and really can´t afford, literally, to support antinatalist policies (gay marriage included).

      • All the east asian countries do.

  • Right. Marriage threesomes coming to a town near you. Please. By the way, the three are not legally married. I also not that I lived in the kingdom for a few years working for an American company. By tradition, men are unofficially married to their wife and their “minor wife.” That doesn’t seem to threaten traditional marriage.

    By the summer, national recognition of same-sex marriage will be the law of the land, Brian Brown will need another hobby and some authors of polemics for Crisis will have to actually use some intellectual curiosity.

    • Objectivetruth

      Why do so few “gays”, when legally given the right to “marry”, actually DONT take advantage of the right and “marry?”

      And please…..don’t quote me any statistics from Spain. Because Pew Research shows that only 2% of adults in the United States that claim to be “gay” actually do get “married” where it is legal.

      • You are begging the question.

        Even if I presume that your math is correct (and I do not), it’s irrelevant to the discussion. Civil rights are not dependent upon the number of people affected by them.

        And why not consider Spain which is a very Catholic country (Spain’s constitution recognizes the importance of the Church)? 2% of all marriages are same-sex which seems about right.

        BTW, exactly where did you get that particular Pew research? I cannot find it. The only state sufficiently “ripe” to appreciate the percentage of gay couples that marry would be Massachusetts.

        • Objectivetruth

          And of course, as always, you didn’t answer my question.

          http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/26/how-many-same-sex-marriages-in-the-u-s-at-least-71165-probably-more/

          Do your own homework and math. With 12 million adult US citizens claiming to be “gay” ( witch is what most LGBT websites claim) only 142, 330 are “married?” And there are 37 states either with (or soon to be) SSM on the books? Wouldn’t one think that with such a long fought for “civil right”, the percentage of the “gay” population wanting “marriage” would be so dramatically higher? Do you really think by making SSM federal law that the next day there will be mile long lines of “gay” couples outside of courthouses across the country looking to get married? Nah. Any SSM bubble has already happened. Even if SSM is made a federal law, over the years, only 5-10% of all “gays” will take advantage of it. That means 90-95% of the “gay” population will say “nope……marriage is not for me!” As I heard one homosexual in a TV interview asked his opinion on SSM he responded”marriage is a ‘straight’ thing. Why would I limit my options?”

          • mitch64

            Once again, the numbers don’t matter concerning the granting of a civil rights..why are you so concerned with that…(actually you should be happy.) You heard one gay guy say that marriage was not for him..which is fine, we live in a free country…I hear that from my straight friends too..(and less and less straight people are choosing to get married and that was before SSM) again, what do the numbers mean? A legal right is a legal right if three people use it or 3 million, the point is they all have a “right,” to use it if they so desire.

            “You guys are running out of God willed institutions to destroy. What are you guys going to do when you’ve run out of moral laws to burn down?”

            This statement is so melodramatic I pictured you throwing yourself over a divan in a fainting spell!

            • Objectivetruth

              “This statement is so melodramatic I pictured you throwing yourself over a divan in a fainting spell!”

              And the extremely sad part is my statement is…….TRUE!

            • BPS

              It’s homosexual ‘camp’ –the desire to ridicule and destroy anything the bourgeois enjoy or hold sacred.
              Don’t worry about plural marriages or marriages to animals. The next target is “emancipation” of children! They should be able to be “sexual beings” and not worry about the destruction of their self-esteem that their families disapproval brings. They should be able to have homosexual mentors, instead of their parents, don’t cha know!

              • mitch64

                What are you talking about? Where did I mention marriage to animals….(or even plural marriages…the article is about one ridiculous example but I was responding to another posters comment about the percentage of gays that choose to marry and that didn’t even mention this…) or “emancipation,” of children. What are you talking about with homosexual mentors instead of parents..did I miss a post?

                • GG

                  I always find your logic absurd. Why would “marriage” to children or multiply players be hard to justify? We already have two men pretending to be husband and wife. If that is not evidence of insanity, nothing is.

                  • mitch64

                    GG back at with the logic comment. Here’s the logic…marriage to children would not be a marriage between a consenting adult who are engaging in their own free will, as would marriage to an animal, etc. Marriage involving more then two people would be a legal nightmare.it is just not consistent with the legal system. Actually GG, its your lack of logic that is making your “side,” loose this particular battle both legally and with the public. If you just stuck to what you believe in (i.e. gay relationships are unnatural because your religious beliefs) most people would at least respect your opinion, but its your religious “campy,” scenarios of people getting married to their daughters, and with three year old and with pot belly pigs, that makes your side look like a bunch of loons…(speaking of insanity.)

                    • GG

                      Again, more absurd logic. This magic word “consent” is as plastic as the word marriage in our inverted world. That has changed, and will change again. There is no reason it stops anything. History as proven that already.

                      The idea that multiple people “marrying” cannot work is laughable on its face. Lawyers, and their masters, can produce all manner of novelty to satisfy the kooks.

                      Slavery worked. Abortion works. No female voting worked. Anything can “work”. The issue is moral truth not lawyering.

                      Again, the idea two men can be “married” is so absurd and beyond contempt that to claim other perversions will not occur is dishonest and frankly insults intelligence.

                    • mitch64

                      Well, I would think absurd logic would be that you outlaw one thing, as you” feel” (not based on any facts) it will open the door to something else completely different. That is why your loosing in court and will continue to do so. So just pray and continue not being gay married and let the world do what it may.

                    • GG

                      No, the problem is your side does not have or use logic. The courts, composed of moral idiots, legislate from their black robes. There is no “right” to two men acting like and husband and wife. It is irrational and contrary to justice and nature.

                      Relativists and hedonists worship orgasm as their god. That nonsense will never silence the normal people who will oppose you at every turn.

                    • Bob

                      Are you the “wife” in your “gay” relationship, Mitch, or is your male “gay” pal the “wife?” Explain to us how you decided who’d play what role?

                      And that’s all “gay marriage” is: a false role play. It’s not true marriage, never will be. It’s pretend marriage.

                    • mitch64

                      That question is so ignorant that it isn’t even worth a response..and its a big reason why your “side,” is loosing this but I think you actually mean it and apparently you live in a bubble without any gay people around you. Let me ask you this Bob..did you and your female pal choose “roles,” or are you people with individual strength and skills? Do you have a chart at home where Marge does this, and Bob does this? For us I am better at dealing with people’s problems and I am intuitive to know when something is wrong with someone he doesn’t…that would be in your world a steroetypical “female” trait…he cooks better then I do and he is much, much neater..he can fold clothes better then anyone on earth and if I do it it comes out wrinkled.so he has a steroetypical female trait…I am athletic and he isnt, I am physically stronger then he is, he makes more money then I do, I have more downtime to take care of family issues and house repairs then he does, and by that I am better at fixing things in the house then he is..he is bossy and thinks he is always right, I let him think it and then do what I want.etc, etc. So you tell me and why is that a concern?What you consider a role play or false is none of my concern or interest, I may think the things you and your galpal do are weird and the roles you play are silly but that is none of my concern and you could care less about my opinion. I would be concerned if anyone did try to take legal benefits away from you and your “gal pal,” based on their own personal views on how you live and what your “roles,” should be, or if they believe you are married in their eyes or not. Other then that I could care less if she “wears the pants in the family” or you do.

                    • Bob

                      Properly defined, in a marriage there is a husband and a wife.

                      In a “gay” “marriage” between two men, which one is the “wife?” Are they both “husbands?” Huh….???? How’s it work??

                      Can you see the ridiculousness of your logic? Is it really proper to define marriage as having two “husbands?” Or redefining the role of “wife” to include men? But why stop there? Who says the role of the wife can’t be redefined to any gender, species or inanimate object? Who made you the “marriage redefined” referee?

                      I find no logic in any of your posts, Mitch. Only false syllogisms.

        • Paul

          Rubbish, Spain is a secular country just like France or even Italy. There are regions in Spain that wish to repeal same-sex marriage but not all.

        • “Even if I presume that your math is correct (and I do not)”

          We don’t make presumptions about mathematical assertions, we confirm them.

          Spain was taken over by Socialists in 2005.

    • Steve Frank

      “Right. Marriage threesomes coming to a town near you. Please”.

      You are reacting just like the author predicted….dismissing any predictions of further “progression” as ludicrous.

      I’ll never forget watching a talk program back when I was a kid in the 70s. The subject was Anita Bryant and the crusade she was leading at the time against gay rights. I believe the issue at hand was whether gays should be allowed to teach children in public schools which was quite controversial at time. One minister made a comment that “today gays want to be school teachers, next thing you know they will expect to marry each other”. At that the very liberal host rolled her eyes and dismissed the minister as fearmongering crackpot. Of course gays don’t expect to marry each other she claimed, they just want the right to keep their jobs, blah blah blah. In other words, 30-40 years ago the typical response to someone who said gay marriage would be next was “Right. Same sex marriages coming to a town hear you. Please”.

      Funny that you have the boiling frog reference in your name but you don’t seem to understand how it works. Of course 3 way marriages sound ludicrous today in time. Thirty years ago same sex marriage sounded even more ludicrous. 3 way marriages won’t be happening next week. That would be heating the water up far too fast…of course the frog would feel it and jump out. But expect stories like this to slowly increase over the next decade. At some point we’ll be treated to hallmark movies where 3 way marriage partners are presented as sympathetic figures fighting against a cold, judgmental world that doesn’t understand them. Over time the water will heat up more and eventually another frog will boil, and just as the author pointed out you will be eating your dismissing “coming to a town hear you, please” comment.

      There is simply no reason to believe that the sexual revolution is going to end with gay marriage. Just because that is the issue YOU care most about, does not mean the progressive cause will end there. The philosophy that underlies the sexual revolution, namely that as long as there is “love”, any form of sexual practice is ok was long ago accepted by Western culture. All that needs to happen now for other yet-to-be-accepted lifestyles is for the “ick” factor to be broken down my media desensitization. Then what seems ludicrous today will be the new measuring rod for “tolerance’ tomorrow.

  • JP

    If things appear to be spiraling out of control, well they are. This is from the New York Magazine in Jan of this year:

    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/01/what-its-like-to-date-your-dad.html

    This reporter took a very friendly view of this “relationship”. Gay marriage and polygamy are only the beginning.

  • I say why waste a lot of time and energy fighting over a word? So they get to call it “marriage”. What matters is they’ll never get to call it “sacramental marriage.” Why is this such a big deal? .

    • GG

      Because words convey reality. They are not married in any sense of the word.

      • I’m afraid they are married in the very real sense that a vast and apparently growing number people are perfectly willing to consider them married. Let’s focus our time and persuasive energies on the sacramental reality — and not worry so much about what the ever-changing fashionable world decides it wants call certain relationships which, after all, have always existed among us under some name or other. .

        • GG

          Sorry, not buying that at all. Square circles do not exist. Abortion is still murder. Homosexual pairings are never marriage.

          Why appease the insane? Truth matters.

          • There’s a world of wisdom in the following axiom from the field of semantics: “The word is not the thing.” What I’m saying is that in this fight over the word “marriage”, too many well-intentioned people are losing sight of the fact that it’s not the word “marriage” that the Lord instituted — but the “thing” — the sacrament of matrimony.

            • GG

              That is just nonsense. Words are intended to convey reality. Once you pretend marriage is two men committing perverted acts you are just a propagandist.

          • There’s a world of wisdom in the following axiom from the field of semantics: “The word is not the thing.” What I’m saying is that in this fight over the word “marriage,” too many well-intentioned folks are losing sight of the fact the Christ did not institute the word “marriage.” He instituted a certain “thing” which we may mean by that word, but which perhaps a majority of other people in the world don’t mean by it. That is, the sacrament of matrimony. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize — on the sacrament Christ instituted, not on this word “marriage” that He didn’t.

            • GG

              In philosophy it is well known one cannot change the essence of a thing by changing its name. Calling sodomy marriage does not make it so. Once you acquiesce to the mentally unstable you have lost your freedom. Words matter more than you imagine.

        • John Flaherty

          No, James, I can’t agree. we need to win the battle about what “marriage” means in any context. If civil law recognizes something different from what we understand of sacramental matrimony, we must realize that sacramental marriage will be assaulted.

          We cannot afford to lose the fight over what “marriage” means.

          • But John, civil law (and a preponderance of public opinion) ALREADY recognizes by the word “marriage” something so very different than what we understand by the sacrament of matrimony! It seems to me we’re already a thousand miles apart — like we’re in our own little world fighting a lost cause over an antique meaning of this extremely common word. If this were not the case, then yes I would be arguing to keep up the fight. But now the Lord has allowed us to have fallen into this position, and it seems clear to me that our job is to ponder the meaning of, and to persuade the world about, “sacramental marriage.” The world is waiting for us to quit tilting at windmills and start communicating with them.

            • John Flaherty

              I’m not entirely sure how to respond to that comment, James. I can tell you that it’s no surprise to me that the world doesn’t wish to admit to what “marriage” means. Such a problem has been noticeable for some time.

              I don’t know what you want to “communicate” to the world, really. If the average person on the street doesn’t know that marriage consists of one man and one woman, that means we need to be rigorous about the use of the term wherever we can.

              • I don’t think it’s mainly a question of the world “not wishing to admit” something. Mostly, people have never even heard of sacramental marriage. Let’s not be mad at them for that. Our job is to patiently propose a brand new gospel just as Jesus did.

                • John Flaherty

                  I will hope that you’ve simply heard from a very different run of people from what I’ve encountered in my life, James. In my experience, most people who have no interest in living Catholic lives have every intent that “marriage” shall mean what they wish for it to mean. They have mostly heard the gospel, however imperfectly, but wish to ignore or reject what it teaches.

                  Most that I’ve met don’t wish to be called to repentance because they don’t wish to change their personal lives at all. In our day and age, most of the battle comes about because people wish to be allowed to follow their sexual desires without hindrance.

                  • What a coincidence! — that’s exactly the kind of people I’ve been meeting all my life! It seems ironic to some, but more than anything else I’d say what living the Catholic life fosters is independent thinking. I won’t say the Lord calls every Catholic this way — but those he does, he makes strong. Which brings all kinds of other good things in its train, and in time you might unexpectedly find yourself connecting with people on these issues.

                    • John Flaherty

                      I’m afraid your last posting didn’t make a tremendous lot of sense to me, James. In your comments, you seem convinced that most people simply have not heard the gospel of Christ, so the definition of “marriage” from a Catholic understanding would not make sense for law. I have warned that, in my experience, most people definitely HAVE heard the gospel.
                      It’s true enough that when people thoroughly think it through and convert that they become very stubborn about their faith. That’s good.
                      Point is though, most are not converting, even after having heard the gospel. Not because they don’t understand it, but because they don’t wish to repent of sinful lifestyles.

                      In recent decades, such interests have begun making any number of efforts to force the Church to be silent; they don’t want to hear about the existence of sin.
                      I think the Church needs to be stubborn and insistent about living out Her life and teaching the world.
                      Most of the time, She has not been so these last few decades.

                    • Your desire that people convert, John, is without doubt a right and wonderful thing. Now I hope you will consider taking Jesus himself as your model of patience about how that process works. See how his incomparable parables speak to people in precisely the terms they best understand. The English language is not like the French language, where you have an Academy tasked with determining the true meaning of a word by fiat. Rather, in English. the meaning of any word is determined solely by common USAGE. That’s simply a fact. We must accept it. However no change in common English usage can ever change the substance of the sacrament of matrimony. Our job is help make present to people’s minds and hearts the wonder and beauty of this sacrament — not to battle with them over how they use a word.

                    • John Flaherty

                      James, if we treated the English language in the manner you suggest, we would never have a need for a dictionary. It may be that exact meanings of words may change slightly over time, but it’d be foolish to surrender the meaning of important words merely to satisfy a politically-correct mob.
                      When we do as you suggest, we’ve already lost at least half of the fight.

            • .
              @johnflaherty:disqus is already communicating with windmills.

              Oh, you meant …
              .

              • ForChristAlone

                EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
                spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
                Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
                terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
                imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
                mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
                sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
                discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
                vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
                in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
                Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
                Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen…+++..

                • .
                  A little over the top there for a follower of an Aramaic speaker of sweet, clever, and impenetrably challenging parables, eh what?
                  _________

                  Translates as:

                  Demon from you, unclean spirit, every assault of the adversary, every apparition, every legion, in the name of Of our Lord Jesus + Christ Begone and stay far away from this creature of God.

                  He commands you, who gave you headlong into the lower parts of the fit subjects for flung.

                  He commands you, that the sea, wind and the rage He commanded.

                  Therefore, hear, and fear, Satan, enemy of the faith, the enemy of the human race, you begetter of death, you robber of life, justice, the root of evil things, the tinder of the vices, seducer of men, he was betrayed to the Gentiles, instigator of envy, covetousness was the origin of, the cause of the the quarrel, the instigator of what you are standing, and resist, when you know, that Christ is the Lord, ways to lose it?

                  Fear Him, who in Isaac was offered in sacrifice, in Joseph sold into bondage, in the lamb was slain, crucified as man, yet triumphed over hell.

                  Following cross shall be made in the front of the siege.

                  Begone, then, in the name of the Father +, and of the Son, and of the Holy + Ghost:

                  Give place to the Holy Spirit by this sign of the holy + cross of Jesus Christ, our Lord;

                  who with the Father and the same With the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth, one God, world without end.

                  +++ Amen … ..
                  __________

                  Pax, bro.

          • .
            You can fight, but who do you fight, @johnflaherty:disqus?
            .
            NO word is yours to own for others.
            .
            But, hey, pick a windmill, and tilt away!
            .

            • ForChristAlone

              EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
              spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
              Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
              terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
              imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
              mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
              sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
              discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
              vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
              in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
              Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
              Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.,…

            • John Flaherty

              *grins* You made my job much easier, Peter. See my comment to James above.

            • GG

              Hey call sodomy gay. It is still sodomy but the immature like to pretend it is not. Got it.

      • .
        Like them divorced non-married folk who think they remarried.

        But you know better — not in any sense of the word, right?
        .

        • ForChristAlone

          EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
          spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
          Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
          terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
          imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
          mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
          sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
          discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
          vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
          in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
          Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
          Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen…..+++..

        • GG

          Not exactly, but close.

    • Because marriage is not only an arrangement that binds the man and the woman, it binds society at large.

      It is a currency that can only be debased and disordered by counterfeiting.

      The government that arrogates to itself the right to insist that you must dispense contraceptives will have no compunction in insisting that it can dictate marriage.

      • .
        Oh, I think marriages were debased and disordered by heterosexuals doing their own stereotypical perennial thing all along throughout history.

        No government or contraceptives needed.

        You confuse cause and effect and non-correlation, @TheAbaum:disqus.
        .

        • ForChristAlone

          EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
          spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
          Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
          terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
          imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
          mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
          sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
          discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
          vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
          in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
          Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
          Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.++++….

    • JP

      Think of the Roman Empire and what was going on there in the 2nd-3rd Century, but in reverse. What was licit in Rome was not licit with Christians. The sacrament of Holy Matrimony eventually replaced whatever ideas of “marriage” the Romans practiced. The reverse is not occurring. The culture at large eventually will replace what we have now.

      • .
        Church-involved marriage had nothing to do with the Roman Empire.
        .

        • ForChristAlone

          EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
          spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
          Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
          terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
          imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
          mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
          sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
          discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
          vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
          in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
          Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
          Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.=++..

        • JP

          The Church’s institution of marriage replaced that which was common in Rome in just 200 years. The gay/bi friendly society of Rome, which also instituted slaver, crucifixions, matricide, and infanticide was replaced by something totally different. You are really very ignorant of history. Not surprising.

      • Yes, cultures change. It’s their nature. And let’s not suppose that the public Christianity that overtook the Roman world brought about the true conversion of every citizen’s heart so that there was perfect observance everywhere of the sacrament of matrimony. That whole experiment was part real success, yes, but also part abject failure. These changes we’re seeing now are challenges to introduce the sacrament anew to a different Roman Empire.

    • .
      Actually, with 200+ gay-affirming Christian denominations across the US, some with gay ministers, even married gay ministers, “sacramental marriage” is in the eye of the beholder.

      Your denomination may vary.
      .

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen…..____

      • Alas, even Catholic parishes vary. But this challenge I’m addressing is mainly to magisterially faithful Catholics.

    • John Flaherty

      “NO secular word used by all is yours to own for others.”

      Peter’s attitude is a classic example of why we need to fight, James.Until our bishops insist that numerous words have a critical religious meaning, until they insist that religious meaning predates all other conventions, people like Peter will insist on misappropriating words and misleading people.
      People like Peter need to be reminded that we all need to repent of sin.
      Such effort has been dangerously lacking these past decades.

  • “What’s the next stop in this three-way same-sex “marriage?” What’s the next progression?” – Marriage in the Church, your church, by your priest who will be jailed for not complying. Yes, they’ll say (for now) that such a thing is beyond the pale, but wait and see. It will come if the “progress train” isn’t stopped here and now.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      Introduce mandatory civil marriage, where the only marriages legally recognised are those performed by the mayor or his adjunct at the town hall.

      • Civil marriage is already mandatory (thank you France) making the exclusive province of the state is the next step.

        • Exactly. Mandatory civil marriage only further weakens the Church, marriage, and the family (and thereby society).

          • HigherCalling

            An idea: Married Catholics should, en masse, skirt the absurdity of civil marriage by seeking civil divorces. Marrying Catholics will sign the mandatory civil marriage contract and should immediately seek civil divorce. Remaining within the false definition “marriage” now advanced by the all-powerful State is to bring scandal to the Church. Faithful Catholics are left with no choice but to divorce themselves from the State and remain solely and completely married within the true, sacramental definition of marriage of the Catholic Church.

      • .
        Marriages are “performed” by the marriage participants.

        You’re thinking of an officiant, a professional witness.
        .

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          “He shall receive from each party, one after the other, the declaration that they wish to take each other as husband and wife; he shall pronounce, in the name of the law, that they are united by marriage, and he shall draw up a record of it at once.” – Law of 9 November 1791.

          • .
            Yer point?

            In 1967 (sadly, but better late than never), the US Supreme Court recognized a Constitutionally protected basic human right to marry.

            No permission from any officiant needed.
            .

            • ForChristAlone

              EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
              spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
              Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
              terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
              imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
              mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
              sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
              discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
              vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
              in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
              Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
              Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen..+…

        • ForChristAlone

          EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
          spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
          Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
          terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
          imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
          mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
          sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
          discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
          vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
          in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
          Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
          Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen….++++

  • Timothy Black

    misspelled “polygamy” in the tags

    • Crisiseditor

      Thanks.

  • Paul

    Thailand may be the first country to legalize 3-people of same-sex marriage but Brazil has already done this with one-man-2-women marriage (aka bi-sexual marriage) as far back as 2012. It was just a matter of time before some progressive would be asking why stick to 3 as it’s only a number. ? As we all know soon there will be a harem a la Islam … this will also entail dire consequences concerning divorce.

  • Sean

    There should be no Federal laws about marriage! Period. There never were marriage laws in the past, it was common law. Having the Federal government(or any government) define a relationship is ridiculous, and beyond the scope of the government. It wasn’t until the 1860’s that marriage laws came in to prevent interracial marriage. If catholics would put effort into eliminating Federal guidelines, it would revert to the states, and common law, and there would be a more tangible good result. By asking for the Federal government(by not changing the argument) to get involved we are allowing them to have more control over our lives, and this empowers them to infringe on other areas of our lives too. As catholics we know that the sacrament of marriage is when the two become one in the full image of God, and therefore creation is possible. We believe in free will,compassion,and love. We should not be put in, or put ourselves in a position of defending the term “marriage” and sounding like bigots. We instead should encourage freedom by keeping the government out of it
    , and we would find less resistance, and we would not have our Federal government define anything. The definition is more about finding social acceptance, and validation for a lifestyle choice; “If the government says it’s OK, than my life choices are valid”. My marriage is valid because of the sacrament I made before God, not because of some piece of paper from the state. It would be a win for everyone…consenting adults would be free to make their own choices, and benefit from the same common law protections as anyone else, and catholics would not have “marriage” redefined and be put in a position. We could just pray for them that they see the light, and reflect the gospel message to the world. We also could raise our children within our faith, and not have to explain why our Federal government is wrong, and our faith is right. If we take the wind out of the sails of the Federal government than it solves many of the problems. We also could encourage our State representation to use the tenth amendment, and nullify any decision, or definition. This is largely a states rights(common-law) vs. Federal issue. We should show compassion but not compromise, instead we should redirect the issue.

    • “and beyond the scope of the government. ”

      So are the design requirements of comodes, but that didn’t stop them there.

      • Sean

        Exactly! If catholics could unify around the idea of natural rights, and support the idea that with rights come responsibilities we would be all better off. We don’t need this kind of interference in our life. We are systematically losing control of our options in life, and our ability to exercise our free will and make our own choices. The idea of freedom should start with us. We should reflect this to the world.

        • “If catholics could unify around the idea of natural rights”.

          You seem to be a new poster here, so let me request your continued presence and advise you of the difficulties ahead.

          We can’t even obtain acknowledgement of the idea of natural rights on this board, and much of own our episcopacy seems all too willing to have the Church get in bed with the state. I think of that as spiritual bestiality.

          Hence the leading voice of fiscal affairs is Stephen Blaire; who led his Diocese into Bankruptcy; and without any hint of aptitude, training or experience that would provide an informed opinion, feels quite unencumbered in commenting on matters of public finance.

          http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-063.cfm

          When you discuss natural rights prepared to be skewered as a disciple of Ayn Rand or a Libertarian, and often both (yes, I know Rand hated libertrarians, but never let facts get in the way of a good rant) and when the dolts are feeling really fiesty; they’ll call you a Mason or a Calvinist.

          Of course, you might note that last summer, the new Archbishop of Chicago, who gives you mealy-mouthed equivocation regardng things like distributing Communion to pro-arbortion politicians, had no problem finding his voice last year to conduct or participate in a mass inquisition to marginalize and stigmatize that misguided herd of cats known as Libertarians and without the slightest irony in that one of the speakers is an avowed proponent of a socialism -Richard Trumka.

          Until the Church is free of the many successors of Cardinal Wolsey, we’ll not have this unity.

          • Holy smokes

            “If I had served God as well as my king, I would not be dying like this” – Wolsey to St. Thomas More – “A Man for All Seasons.” Good stuff but I´m sure you can quote more lines than me.

            Your comment also reminds me of the Lord´s answer to the Pharisees (who also capitulated their faith for power), “Give to Caesar what is Caesar´s, and to God what is God´s.”

            This is man´s constant anthropocentric tendancy (or the effects of original sin if you will) to prioritize the hierarchy of law, and then becoming atheist (or agnostic) to justify human law (separated from Divine and Natural Law) as the highest law. The Church/State conundrum manifests this struggle in all ages. The effect of human law dominance over Divine Law is martyrdom and war. The final result is eventual conversion.

          • Sean

            I am a new poster. Thank you for the introduction and helpful navigation tips. I look forward to productive dialogue. Thanks.

        • .
          Great, @disqus_AhiGSLpl4y:disqus.

          So, let’s start a list of options Catholics have lost control over in our lives, our ability to exercise our free will and make our own choices.

          1 – ______________________________________________

          2 – ______________________________________________

          3 – ______________________________________________

          … and so on.

          I’ll wait.
          .

          • ForChristAlone

            EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
            spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
            Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
            terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
            imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
            mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
            sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
            discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
            vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
            in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
            Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
            Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen….+++

  • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

    A little off topic, but not that far off: Can anyone think of any legitimate reason that Anthony Kennedy should not be publicly excommunicated? Is it even conceivable that he would not have been prior to Vatican II ?

    • Well yes. He has impressive black robe and a gavel.

  • thebigdog

    As the intolerant, Christian hating bully Dan Savage says… even homosexuals in committed relationships are only “monogamish”

    Obsession with sexuality is consistent with immaturity and being emotionally damaged.

    • .
      Oh my, do you feel bullied by Dan Savage?
      .

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.+++….

      • thebigdog

        No clueless one, he was bullying teenagers because they refused to worship at his altar of sodomy. Read and learn:

        http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/anti-bullying-speaker-curses-mocks-christian-teens.html

    • Lutesuite

      As the intolerant, Christian hating bully Dan Savage says… even homosexuals in committed relationships are only “monogamish”.

      Actually, he uses that term to describe couples of all sexual orientations, not just homosexuals.

      Obsession with sexuality is consistent with immaturity and being emotionally damaged.

      So what does that say about all the people obsessing over the fact that gay people can now get married?

      • thebigdog

        “Actually, he uses that term to describe couples of all sexual orientations, not just homosexuals.”

        I read a quote of his in an article a couple of years ago and he was specifically referring to homosexuals… if he has chosen since then to include heterosexuals, it would be for the purpose of damage control.

        “It’s also odd that, though you folks are always arguing how necessary marriage is for the stability of couples..”

        I can’t speak for others but I’m confident in saying that people who support traditional marriage do so primarily for the sake of children… not the stability of the couple. Children need both a mother and a father and are far better off in that situation than with two women or two men as parents.

        “you fail to consider that if gay couples are less stable, that might be because they are not allowed to marry.”

        Homosexuals are very unstable — but it is not because heterosexuals won’t let them get married. In countries where gay marriage has been legal for several years, less than 5% of homosexuals have gotten married… who do the use as an excuse?

        “So what does that say about all the people obsessing over the fact that gay people can now get married?”

        I wish you attention starved drama queens would just shut up already.

        • Lutesuite

          I can’t speak for others but I’m confident in saying that people who
          support traditional marriage do so primarily for the sake of children…
          not the stability of the couple. Children need both a mother and a
          father and are far better off in that situation than with two women or
          two men as parents.

          And I can easily demonstrate that is false: Same sex couples can adopt or raise children thru other means without getting married. It’s already happening, and would continue to happen even if SSM were never legalized. So be banning SSM, all you would be accomplishing would be to deny these families, including the children, the legal, financial and social benefits and protections that are afforded thru marriage. IOW, your target is homosexuals, and you don’t care if their children are harmed as collateral damage of your attacks.

          “Won’t someone think of the children?” That’s become something of a meme nowadays. Do you think it is used to signify an argument that is rational and sincere? Or one that is hypocritically offered to cover someone’s true intentions? The same argument was used by the opponents of mixed race marriage, in the days that that was a controversial issue. Do you think that was the real reason people supported anti-miscengation laws? How accurate were their predictions regarding the horrors that would befall society if those laws were struck down?

          http://www.ibtimes.com/why-gay-marriage-really-interracial-marriage-213088

          • thebigdog

            “And I can easily demonstrate that is false: Same sex couples can adopt
            or raise children thru other means without getting married.”

            Are you so self absorbed that you are incapable of empathizing with the 98%? I don’t care about your same sex anything! I care about the emotional, psychological, mental and physical well being of the children and that means desiring God’s will for them (a male father and a female mother) — not two dudes experimenting with a new interest.

            “So if the homosexuals that you consider “unstable” are not going to get married anyway, then why are you guys squealing like stuck pigs about this issue?”

            Ah, the best defense is a good offense. The reality is that while homosexual men have demanded for decades to be considered normal by the rest of society, while acting like mentally ill, perverted exhibitionists during their public parades down Main Street in the middle of the day.

            As for the “unstable” homosexuals (you admit exist) who won’t get married anyway.. that would be 95% of the gay population worldwide. In countries where same sex marriage has been legal for several years, less than 5% of the gay population has gotten married.

            People continuously demanding something they don’t really want is a sign of mental illness (extreme control issues). If you are sincere, you will stop attacking the normal people in society and address the mess in your own little dysfunctional subculture.

            • Lutesuite

              Wow, thebigdog. I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be for the opponents of marriage equality here who are trying to stick to the script of saying this is all about respect for “natural law”, or concern over the well-being of children, or some other such reasonable-sounding (though still fallacious and vapid) issue, only to have you come by and give the game away by spewing blatant hatred all over the place. They really should muzzle the likes of you if they want to get anywhere.

              • thebigdog

                “I can’t imagine how frustrating your post must be for the opponents of marriage equality.”

                Smarmy passive aggressive attack.

                “And then you come by and, after doing your best to read from the same script for a few sentences..”

                Unlike the gaystapo, I don’t read from any script.. ever.

                “spewing blatant hatred all over the place”

                What the 98% imply as factual, the 2% infer as hatred. It’s funny that rather than providing examples, you choose instead the simpleton route of saying “all over the place” Pointing out the fact that 95% of homosexuals choose not to get married after demanding it for decades is neither hateful nor my fault… look in the mirror for once in your life.

                “They really should muzzle the likes of you if they want to get anywhere.”

                What you really mean is that you would like to silence me… sorry, not going to happen. Your disingenuous, manipulative agenda has mistaken kindness as weakness for far too long — it is time to present the truth apologetically and in no uncertain terms.

                • Lutesuite

                  What you really mean is that you would like to silence me… sorry, not going to happen. Your disingenuous, manipulative agenda has mistaken kindness as weakness for far too long — it is time to present the truth apologetically and in no uncertain terms.

                  Believe me, the last thing advocates of marriage equality would want if for you to be silenced. Every time the likes of you opens his mouth to spew more hatred, it brings the goal of marriage equality that much closer. Few thoughtful people want to be on the side of bigots.

                  Your friends on the anti-SSM side might want a word with you, however….

                  • thebigdog

                    Not to be exalted by the homosexual community is really crushing… I hope I can recover.

                    • Lutesuite

                      Not exalted? I tell you, if you were to make speeches like the ones you’re making here and enough people hear them, you would be exalted above all others as the person who finally made same sex marriage a universal reality. You’re the best argument in favour of marriage equality there is.

                    • thebigdog

                      I’ve obviously struck a nerve with you… you’re obsessed with me.

  • grzybowskib

    YES. TIMES INFINITY.

  • John Albertson

    Fulton Sheen once wrote a book called “Three to Get Married” but he did not mean this. The more ridiculous people become, the more the absurdity of re-defining marriage is exposed. But it is as serious as it is silly. That photograph is a diabolic Trinity, and Beelzebub is laughing.

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      Seen from a certain perspective, all evil is ridiculous.

  • Veritas

    Wow. Imagine the cat fights in that house.

    Won’t last long.

    • You owe cats an apology. They maybe anti-social, self-concerned preeners, but they serve a useful purpose in disposing of rodents.

      • Veritas

        I will apologize to Clyde and Slater–two rough and tumble cats–when I get home tonight. Following up on your quip, could we explore this inverse variation a little further? If rodents decrease as the cats increase, what might decrease as perversion increases? What might decrease as same sex marriage increases?

        • “what might decrease as perversion increases.”
          Lifespans. Measures of health.
          Lack of sexual hygiene spreads disease, latex peddler’s claims aside. My coworker’s wife is a Registered Nurse Practioner, her clinicals in OB-GYN included seeing a young woman whose presenting symptoms were pustules and a ghastly discharge.
          Informed that she had VD, she was indignant and angry, because she was intimate with only her boyfriend. Ironically, when informed of her condition’s incubation period, she realized that coincided with “Spring Break” and he went to Florida with buddies while she remained home.
          I tend to thin pseudonogamy is merely a symptom of a more profound disease that disfigures the human person and the marital embrace. The disease, left unchecked is fatal-so it’s a question of mortality, not morbidity.

          • Veritas

            Thus, a clear decline in some segments of the population. Unfortunately, some may be innocent.

            • .
              ALL are innocent.

              No one deserves disease.

              No one creates disease.

              Luckily, those infected with communicable diseases are statistically not more likely to intentionally infect others.
              .

              • ForChristAlone

                EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
                spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
                Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
                terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
                imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
                mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
                sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
                discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
                vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
                in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
                Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
                Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.._._

          • .
            Nice treatise on some men, not sexuality or equal rights under law.
            .
            Thanks.
            .

            • ForChristAlone

              EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
              spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
              Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
              terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
              imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
              mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
              sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
              discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
              vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
              in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
              Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
              Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.=+++

    • mitch64

      Actually have to agree with you there!!!

    • .
      What, versus heterosexual Judeo-Christian marriages with multiple partners throughout history?
      .

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.+=…..

  • Sgt_Rock

    I saw this story roll across my Facebook feed a while back. I shake my head as humanity
    continues to circle the drain.

    The article makes a perfectly valid point. One that I’ve raised more than once: When you redefine marriage, you don’t redefine it for just gay people. You redefine it for everybody. You therefore open the Pandora’s box of endless permutations of ‘marriage.’ Of course, the ‘open minded, tolerant’ crowd will call you a hater, and a reactionary.

    My own niece loves to chant the meaningless mantra, ‘All love is good love.’ Which
    consistently makes me laugh. Of course, she’s ever so sophisticated and open minded and I’m just a reactionary, bigoted dinosaur.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to the re-education camps. You see there is a serious proposal in California to declassify pedophilia as a mental disorder. The American Psychiatric Association is at least partially on board with doing so.
    Because, gosh, homosexuality was once classified as a mental disorder
    and that’s just wrong. So once NAMBLA and other activists get this declassification done, marriage between an adultand a child becomes feasible because all love is good love.

    “But the difference,’ she’ll say, “Is that these are a little, defenseless children!” And that
    will be irrelevant because you’ve made the statement that all love is good love. When you insisted the courts redefine marriage, they redefined it for everybody. When you make laws based on emotion, you then have no basis to object to the ill-thought out consequences of your actions do you? Or are you just a hater and a bigot? After all, ‘all’ love is ‘good’ love. Please recite that mantra when it becomes legal for someone to molest your children.

    As much schadenfreude as that moment would produce, I sincerely hope it will never come. The thing is, I have less and less hope that it’s not already here.

    • Asmondius

      Now that the marriage issue seems to be a foregone conclusion, attention will focus on pederasty. It all falls in with the theme that you’re entitled to love whomever you wish.
      .
      NAMBLA did march in Pride parades right up until the 1990’s when their presence was deemed to be harmful to the cause.

      • .
        Looking for something, @asmondius:disqus?

        Marriage is not a legal potential without partners with full legal self agency, something a child does not have in our society.

        Though heterosexual Christians married very young children in many rural and aged parts of the US — is that what you are thinking of?
        .

        • ForChristAlone

          EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
          spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
          Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
          terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
          imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
          mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
          sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
          discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
          vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
          in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
          Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
          Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.=+

        • Asmondius

          ‘ ..full legal self agency, something a child does not have in our society.’
          .
          ‘…heterosexual Christians married very young children…’
          .
          Both can not be true – please get back to me when you have worked out your own rhetorical conflict.

    • Kim58

      And along those same idiotic lines, “all human bodies are good human bodies”…wonder what you niece will say when a person who is biologically a man but “feels” he’s a woman comes into her public restroom and molests her!

      • .
        Stop your hateful bigotry, @Kim58:disqus — you have absolutely no support for your fear and speculative accusations.

        Trans people are universally the victim not perpetrator of personal assaults because of people like you who turn their fearful beliefs into hateful and damaging, violent behavior.

        If you clamor for anything bathroom wise, clamor for unisex single rooms for equal privacy for all.

        But back off your fellow God’s children who are trans, and love.

        Only love.

        Try it, you’ll like it.
        .

        • ForChristAlone

          EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
          spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
          Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
          terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
          imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
          mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
          sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
          discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
          vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
          in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
          Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
          Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.++….

      • Kara Connor

        Why do you imagine that would happen? That would be a serious crime. Are you actually suggesting some absurd scenario where someone who would risk committing an act with such punitive consequences is put off because he can’t go into the women’s restroom? Which will generally have other people going in and out of it, who would see and report him? It defies logic, and you are parroting a hate meme which is demolished by anyone who actually gives it a moment’s thought.

        • .
          hate meme?
          .

          • ForChristAlone

            EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
            spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
            Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
            terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
            imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
            mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
            sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
            discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
            vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
            in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
            Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
            Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen…..++

        • ForChristAlone

          EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
          spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
          Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
          terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
          imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
          mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
          sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
          discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
          vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
          in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
          Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
          Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.+++

        • GG

          What defies logic is some deranged man thinking he is a woman. In a more just and sane world such a person would be committed to a hospital and receive psychiatric treatment.

          • Kara Connor

            You actually can’t dispute my logic, so you resort to pretending to know more than the professionals and scientists who actually study this.

            • GG

              Your logic is false. The experts can not make truth disappear.

              • Kara Connor

                Yet you were unable to actually show either of those things. Color me shocked.

                • Bob

                  When you were in High School, did you vote for yourself for homecoming king???

                  You sho’ do like to vote for yourself!

                  • Kara Connor

                    Dies your Mom know you are using her computer without permission, Bob? If you want to insult me you’ll have to step up your game.

                    • Bob (aka “Fido”)

                      Look, I’m on your side Kara. You’re 100% correct, if a man claims he’s a woman, we should respect that. If a woman claims she’s a 1964 Chevy pickup truck, we should respect that too. Viva la difference……you are soooooo correct.,….we all should be able to claim whatever we want to be! Luckily, there’s enough “professionals and scientists” (as you say) out there that will justify to the truth of all of our true identities.

                      For me, it’s a golden retriever. I’m a canine trapped in a man’s body. I’ve petitioned the American Kennel Club to allow me in to the Westminster Dog Show next year. I’ve got a really good shot at “best in breed.”

                      Thank you Kara, on behalf of all of us who now can be “freeeeeee to be meeeeee” and your incredible logical reasoning!

                      Woof!

                    • Kara Connor

                      Except that no one has to my knowledge, started off with a potential car body or a golden retriever body in utero. Whereas we all begin with bipotential gonads and brains which get masculinized (or not) depending on the action of androgens. So your analogy rather breaks down there. If you believe you have some unassailable point do elaborate on it instead of being patronizing.

                    • Bob

                      I’ve got to be truthful, your explanation makes no sense at all!

                      As I said in my original post, your “redefinitions” are whatever you want them to be.

                      Relativism, is thy name……

                    • Kara Connor

                      Which parts are you having difficulty following, Bob?

                    • Bob (aka “Fido”)

                      No difficulty at all with understanding your logic at all, Kara!! It’s crystal clear, you’re a relativist!

                      The problem though KC is you only accept YOUR version of relativism and won’t accept anyone else’s version of relativism.

                      As you have clearly shown Kara, you bow and worship to the god of relativism. But where you’re hurting your own argumentation as a relativist, is you won’t accept others relativistic beliefs.

                      So if you “relativistically” believe a person claiming to be a woman trapped in a man’s body then you absolutely MUST accept unequivocally my belief that I am a golden retriever trapped in a man’s body. Under relativism, we’re all right……no ones wrong.

                      You undercut your own argument and reasoning by not 100% accepting mine and others beliefs.

                      Under your arguments/beliefs, we’re all right, no ones wrong, Kara!! So whether someone believes deep down they’re a man, woman, dog, elm tree, coffee maker, or a Boeing C-17 transport jet…………we’re all correct!!!

                      Hip, hip…….hooooooray!!!

                    • Kara Connor

                      Let’s see what the observable, physical evidence found by science says, Bob. That way you will see you are quite incorrect, and there is nothing “relative” about it. Feel free to post papers showing that anyone has the physical brain of a Boeing C-17, a dog, or an elm tree. I look forward to seeing your evidence. In the meantime, read the short paper

                      Gender Differences in Human Brain: A Review
                      http://benthamopen.com/journal/render-fulltext.php?articleID=TOANATJ-2-37

                      to get an understanding of dimorphic areas of the brain, and also how the brain develops as male or female. I doubt you will though, but at least the evidence is available for those who want to know what the observable facts say.

                      Some conditions such as AIS give very visible features – for example, appearing physically female. Others may not affect the gonads, but do inhibit the second trimester differentiation of the brain as (we all start out “female-brained” as it were), and of course the brain is not usually visible. It turns out that many of these gender dimorphic areas are not neuro-plastic, i.e. once formed during gestation, they do not change in response to hormones, therapy, drugs, whatever. They’re fixed for life.

                      The following papers are a small sample of those demonstrating that trans women have brains which physically resemble those of typical XX females, despite the subject having a Y chromosome. Remember that genotype is not necessarily phenotype, due to a number of factors such as in-utero hormones, epigenetics, e.g. methylation of certain genes which switches them off.

                      The gonads develop in the first trimester of pregnancy whereas the brain differentiates male/female in the second trimester in response to androgen surges, but only if they happen, and only if the androgen receptors and chemical pathways are responsive. Note also that several of these papers explicitly compare MTF transsexuals who have never received hormone treatment, in order to eliminate that as a cause.

                      http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/85/5/2034.full

                      A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality
                      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6552/abs/378068a0.html

                      A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucl… [Brain. 2008]
                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18980961?dopt=Abstract

                      Neuroimaging differences in spatial cognition betw… [J Sex Med. 2010]
                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19751389

                      Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female t… [Neuroimage. 2009]
                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19341803

                      Sexual differentiation of the human brain relevan… [Gynecol Endocrinol. 2004]
                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15724806

                      White matter microstructure in female to male tran… [J Psychiatr Res. 2011]
                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20562024

                      Pacific Center for Sex and Society – Atypical Gender Development a review
                      http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2005to2009/2006-atypical-gender-development.html

                      Pacific Center for Sex and Society – Dichotic Listening, Handedness, Brain Organization and Transsexuality
                      http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2010-dichotic-listening.html

                • GG

                  Your “logic” is solipsistic. No rational person thinks that they are the wrong gender. Such a thought is proof of mental instability.

                  • Kara Connor

                    You show yourself incapable of either formulating or understanding a logical argument. Either present one or stop trying blatant assertion.

                    • GG

                      You are confused, again.

                • Atilla The Possum

                  Colour you EVIL!

            • Bob

              I believe I’m a golden retriever, and on my morning walk with my owner I will be defacating on your front lawn. Don’t worry, though….he’ll have his “pooper scooper.”) “professionals and scientists” who have studied me say my behavior is normal and acceptable. Gee……as normal and acceptable as a man claiming he’s a woman and wants to dress in a teenage girls locker room.

              HOOOORAY FOR LIBERAL ATHEISTIC PROGRESSIVES!! Anything goes now! Throw out the Ten Commandments, folks! We are freeeee to beeeee what we all truly are!!

              Thanks, Kara!! Your logic and argumentation has freed us all to embrace our perversions!

              Woof…..SQUIRREL!!

              • Kara Connor

                A very long way of saying you have ni valid counterarguments. Thanks for confirming.

            • Bob

              Who in the world “up votes” themselves???

        • Bob

          Who in the world “up votes” themselves……twice?????

          • Kara Connor

            I don’t know. Who does?

    • Yup. The age of consent will, by the voodoo of psycho-quakery, mysteriously roll back to the edges where prepubescence meets adolescence. Interestingly enough, with the influx of Muslim immigrants and their culture into the West, I can’t find a single rational basis on the leftist world view to deny unions between highly disparate age groups (especially older men with young girls).

      • We are proud to announce the wedding of our daughter, Aisha,6 to.. oh wait, that’s very old news.

    • .
      You have no evidence that children will ever be able to enter into a contract.

      Stop wasting everyone’s time trying to paint unrelated others with the imaginary NAMBLA brush, @Sgt_Rock:disqus.
      .

      • CarlsPatrick

        I think the imaginary picture is what you’re painting thinking this is normal.

        • .
          Wait … what?

          Thanks for your unintelligible gibberish, @CarlsPatrick:disqus.

          But I have no idea what you are trying to get across.

          Please edit and rewrite for clarity if you care for me to understand.

          Thanks.
          .

          • CarlsPatrick

            Your head is too thick to penetrate, so I see no use.

            • .
              All you have to do is replace the pronouns with the nouns you are referring to, @CarlsPatrick:disqus.

              Otherwise, your writing is impenetrably ambiguous:

              “… thinking [ what? ] is normal …”

              Thanks.
              .

              • ForChristAlone

                EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
                spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
                Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
                terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
                imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
                mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
                sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
                discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
                vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
                in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
                Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
                Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen…..+

              • CarlsPatrick

                What I wrote is self-explanatory.

          • ForChristAlone

            EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
            spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
            Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
            terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
            imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
            mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
            sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
            discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
            vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
            in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
            Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
            Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen…+.

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen…..+

    • Kara Connor

      By your fallacious “logic”, opposite sex marriages would inevitably result in grown men marrying girls. You appear not to understand what consent is, and who can give it. Not a single one of your “slipper slope” scenarios has happened in any jurisdiction with marriage equality. Not one. Some European countries have had marriage equality for several decades. Additionally, denying equal protection to a group based on what might happen with other groups doesn’t hold water. Your fear mongering has been dismissed by every logical thinker and every court to which it has been presented. Just admit your animus. That would, at least, be intellectually honest of you.

      • .
        These folks have researched -w-a-y- too much about the depths and details of NAMBLA ancient history, and appear to protest -w-a-y- too much — self titillation?

        Reports suggest NAMBLA has not existed in any findable form for almost a decade.
        The public face of LGBT activism has continuously opposed NAMBLA for the last 35+ years.

        But, truth holds no sway over fear and bigotry (and self-titillating imagination).
        .

        • Kara Connor

          Putting the two acronyms together appears to be one of their transparent tactics.

        • ForChristAlone

          EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
          spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
          Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
          terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
          imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
          mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
          sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
          discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
          vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
          in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
          Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
          Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.+++.

      • CarlsPatrick

        The courts are tainted with disgust and stupidity. “Marriage equality” never happened in Europe. Never. All this fabricated “history” is merely fabrication to justify their agenda.

        • .
          Please quote at least one line of court written disgust and stupidity, and then let’s discuss, @CarlsPatrick:disqus.

          All of the recent decisions are on the web as PDF documents where you can cut and paste any phrase you are referring to.

          Then we can deal with specifics instead of reactionary innuendo.

          Thanks.
          .

          • CarlsPatrick

            I have no need to do that. Whatever the courts hear in contradiction, they end up censoring. The courts make the decisions, but it doesn’t make it right.

            • .
              You’re the one who said what the courts do, @CarlsPatrick:disqus.

              I only asked you to show us evidence that convinced you of that.

              I’d like to know, truly.

              All testimony before the courts is also public, just longer to read, but nothing is censored (prior restraint) — everything presented to the court in any form is on record for public review.

              But if your opinion of court cases and decisions is not based on actual facts from the court cases and decisions, then I understand.
              .

              • ForChristAlone

                EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
                spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
                Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
                terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
                imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
                mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
                sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
                discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
                vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
                in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
                Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
                Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen…+

              • CarlsPatrick

                None of the testimonies before the courts are actually public. Courts only side with the corrupt and immoral, hence the reason why they make the decisions bypassing all proper voting and decisions made by our senators. You’re the kind of person that denies evidence anyway. These articles on this are truthful and factual enough. But because you’re so arrogant and hateful of the truth, you dispute then anyway.

                • Lutesuite

                  None of the testimonies before the courts are actually public.

                  And do you actually believe this?

                  • CarlsPatrick

                    Yes I do believe this. The courts bypass any referendum regardless of any majority in opposition to gay marriage. In fact, I don’t have to believe it because it is the truth. You don’t believe what I’m saying because you’re a liar.

                    • Lutesuite

                      Yes I do believe this. The courts bypass any referendum regardless of any majority in opposition to gay marriage.

                      Well, yes, that’s true. The courts are independent of the legislative branch of government and do not operate in accordance with referendums. So that’s just how things should be. Basic civics course, no charge.

                      But that’s not what you were asked about. You claimed that “none of the testimonies before the courts are actually public.” Really? The public is barred from observing any court proceedings? Where and when are you talking about, that this takes place?

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      That’s exactly what I was asked so quit rephrasing the answer I give. The courts have no business to suddenly lobby and change the laws when deemed necessary to them especially if they are too concerned about public referendum voting against their bypassing and sneaky bill-passing process. Yes, the public is barred explaining why the courts shut the doors on public referendum.

                    • Lutesuite

                      The courts have no business to suddenly lobby and change the laws when deemed necessary….

                      Umm, actually, no, you’re wrong. That’s exactly one of the things the courts are supposed to do, It’s in the Constitution, Article III. You should try reading something other than the Bible, the Cathechism, and Catholic propaganda websites sometime. Your brain will thank you.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Suddenly it’s in the Constitution entered by the courts’ own volition. That is an abuse of power and document falsification. Plus the more books I read the more lies and fabrication I pick from secular sources. The bible and the cathechism are the ultimate guides. Catholic sites are not propaganda. They are guidance and wisdom driven. Your crappy sources and gay literature are what’s propaganda.

                    • Lutesuite

                      Suddenly it’s in the Constitution entered by the courts’ own volition.

                      Um, no. Article III is part of the original text of the Constitution. That’s why it’s not called an “amendment.” You think the courts can amend or strike down parts of the Constitution?

                      Seriously, dude. Read a book sometime, other than the religious propaganda in which you seem to be immersed. You call yourself a “researcher”? Just who is paying you do to “research” that consists of things you just make up out of thin air?

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      My left eyeball it’s part of the original Constitution. The courts do specifically strike down and amend the Constitution and it’s been going on since all this gay lobbying. The books you recommend are full of lies. I read enough of them and will not read them further. My religion is no propaganda especially if it reveals the truth. Seriously, what you should be doing is read the Bible with full conviction and perhaps you’ll understand the truth I’m relaying to you and finally remove the wool pulled your eyes. My research is not out of thin air. I sent you sources enough but you call it recitation. How exactly do you research? I’m sure the sources you find are picked out of the first page on an Internet search.

                    • Lutesuite

                      My left eyeball it’s part of the original Constitution.

                      Yes, it is. You can go down to Washington DC and see it for yourself, if you wish.

                      http://www.archives.gov/museum/visit/rotunda.html

                      Unless you think the “homofascists” have snuck in and replaced it with a forged copy, without anyone noticing.

                      The courts do specifically strike down and amend the Constitution and it’s been going on since all this gay lobbying.

                      Hee, hee. You’re so funny. OK, I’ll humour you. Give me one example where the courts have struck down or amended part of the US Constitution. It doesn’t even have to be the result of “gay lobbying”. Any example will do.

                      (Predicted response: “I don’t have to give any examples. I already have. You just dismiss them, anyway. I know what I say is the truth.”)

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      The homofascists having highly influenced the judicial system exercise the abuse of power whether laws have been passed or not. Every example I give you means nothing to you. But you dismiss each example because it is from any Catholic website. You hate to read about the truth.

                    • Lutesuite

                      I was pretty close, wasn’t I?

            • Lutesuite

              I have no need to do that. Whatever the courts hear in contradiction, they end up censoring.

              Ha ha ha ha ha! That’s a good one. And a new one, for you. This time, you didn’t say “I already posted examples.”

              • CarlsPatrick

                Actually I will say to you I posted examples. But you still don’t believe them because you’re a liar and believe your own lies.

          • ForChristAlone

            EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
            spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
            Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
            terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
            imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
            mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
            sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
            discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
            vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
            in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
            Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
            Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen..+

          • Lutesuite

            Hi, peterblaise.

            CarlsPatrick is a good friend of mine from other discussion forums. It’s quite amusing that you will ask him to provide quotes or citations to support the claims he makes. I regularly ask him to do so, and am endlessly amused by the various ploys he uses to get out of it. His favourite seems to be to say “I’ve already posted them”, when he has done nothing of the sort. Here, he seems to be trying a new one, saying that court decisions are not available to the public. LOL!

            Like I say, he is very entertaining, so long as you know what to expect (and that does not include verifiable sources for any of his claims)

            • CarlsPatrick

              Spreading lies to fellow liars doesn’t work.

              • Lutesuite

                What lie would that be, CarlsPatrick? People can see for themselves the accuracy with which I have described your behavior by simply clicking on your name and reading your posts.

                • CarlsPatrick

                  Everything you say is a lie. What people? You really think you have everyone on your side? I don’t need several people on my side nor do I even need a side. I don’t care if you click on my name. I rather stick to a single truth than follow thousands of lies (You being one of them).

        • Kara Connor

          Denmark, the Netherlands? You really are devoid of valid points.

          • CarlsPatrick

            Stupid examples. Look at the depth instead of the surface. They only make things look rosy, yet they go as far as killing patients in hospitals. This is just the beginning. It’s only a matter of time before they all fall apart.

            • .
              In the US, we mercilessly kill approximately half a million people every hear due to hospital “miscare”, to put it euphemistically.

              Please contrast and compare our own death count to ANY research you can find in any and all countries world wide, including parts of the US, where doctor assisted, patient chosen and controlled end of life is not prohibited by law, to support your claims.

              Again, you pay attention to your own imaginary fears as if they were real for others, at the expense of addressing real problems.

              What could cause that sad, broken, inaccurate attitude of yours, @CarlsPatrick:disqus?

              Could it be … bigotry?
              .

              • ForChristAlone

                EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
                spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
                Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
                terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
                imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
                mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
                sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
                discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
                vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
                in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
                Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
                Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.++.

              • CarlsPatrick

                In the US, it is getting to the point where patients will no longer have the choice to live. In some provinces in Canada, doctors are soon to be forced to perform assisted deaths otherwise their licenses are revoked. There is no comparison of patient deaths and assisted suicide. it’s merely the disrespect for life, something you cherish since gay marriage is another plot to destroy life and families.
                My fears are not imaginary. They are very much real. And believe it or not, it will affect you too. It will hit you when you least expect it. Remember, the Germans and all those who were not Jewish thought Nazism would not affect them. But everyone learned otherwise. What could cause that sad, broken mentally twisted, self-loathing and self-denying attitude of yours. Could it be stupidity?

                • Lutesuite

                  In some provinces in Canada, doctors are soon to be forced to perform assisted deaths otherwise their licenses are revoked.

                  Could you please provide a source that confirms this?

                  • CarlsPatrick

                    Ha ha! Now I think you’re funny (and pathetic). I don’t need to. The proof is in all these articles. Plus I don’t need to convince liars of the truth.

                    • Lutesuite

                      The proof is in all these articles.

                      Which articles, CarlsPatrick? You don’t seem to have posted links to any articles that state that doctors in Canada will be required perform assisted suicide on patients or risk losing their licences. Did you just forget to include it? Since I am a doctor practicing in Canada, it is quite puzzling to me that I have heard nothing about this. So it would be most helpful if you can give me the source of this important information, which has so far escaped my notice.

                      Thanks in advance.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Liars are not convinced of the truth just like in your case. Whatever source of truth I give you, you deny. Actually 90 percent of doctors should be losing their licences because they have no clue on how to care for patients.

            • Kara Connor

              Please name a jurisdiction where marriage equality has lead to any of the fear-mongering things suggested, instead of trying to derail completely off topic.

              • CarlsPatrick

                http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/corporations-enemy.

                https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alberta-unanimously-passes-bill-forcing-faith-based-schools-to-allow-gay-cl.

                Read above. That is exactly what os happening.
                These are not fear mongering things. This is reality, which you refuse to admit. My comments are not derailing nor off topic. Your morbid support of things gay is what’s derailing. I’ve dealt with a lot of your kind demanding evidence, evidence, evidence only to have it disputed. Why? Because you’re a bunch of liars and do nothing but follow packs of lies. The gay community is bullish, selfish and only wish to self-gratify themselves. You can call me whatever you like: hateful, discriminant, bigoted, or whatever. I don’t care. I stand for what is right. But what I sent you is only a fraction of the things happening on everyone’s doorstep. If you think otherwise, and think this is all good, then you’re even more dumb and stupid than I thought.

                • Kara Connor

                  Try answering the question instead of linking to two fundamentalist web sites, one whining because corporations are supporting marriage equality and the other because a Canadian school os allowing and LGBT student club.

                  • CarlsPatrick

                    Kara, these are factual sites. The LGBT are another bullish and Nazish organization, so who are the fundamentalists? They are worse than ISIS. I did answer your question. Respond by associating yourself with the truth. Not with packs of lies. Change does not imply progress. Your ruthless support is adding to the destruction of humanity. It will catch up to you too one day. When it does, you’ll remember it was me that warned you.

                    • Kara Connor

                      They are not factual sites. They are religious sites. Nor does either of them give a single example of a jurisdiction with marriage equality has led to polygamy or people legally marrying animals, objects or children. Neither site even addresses those issues. And what “Nazi LGBT organization” are you talking about? You just Godwin-ed yourself, by the way.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      No I did not Godwin myself. You’re just lying to yourself, plus you’ve proven to be a bigot against religious people. But that’s ok to you, right. It’s ok for LGCT organizations to bully others, right? Why don’t you put it to the test yourself and speak against them and see what happens? Or are you too frightened by the truth I’m telling you? These religious sites are posting facts and nothing but facts. But to carry on your pathetic argument, give it a little more time and very soon you’ll see the courts pass on bills to allow polygamy and sex with animals. The LGBT are Nazis trespassing on everyone’s doorstep and workplace forcing everyone to bare their colors. Each of the sites I sent you does address those issues. Since you’ve proven my point and refuse to believe the truth I will not send you any more self-explanatory evidence. Lastly, if you hate religion so much, then remove yourself from this site and go visit an anti-Catholic site or LGBT site. You don’t belong here.

                    • Kara Connor

                      You have invoked Nazi comparisons, which is not only an insult to the memory of the thousands of gay people gassed by the Nazis, but means you have fallen foul of Godwin’s Law. You also confuse that it is not bigoted to call out bigots, and that your desire for the unfettered rights ro discriminate in public businesses being curtailed does not make you a victim. It is a special right you have never and should never have, to ignore laws everyone else should follow.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      And why shouldn’t I? The gay lobbyists are doing and repeating exactly what the Nazis have done. They are forcefully shoving their agenda in everybody’s face. So don’t compare me with the Nazis. I’m against Nazism meaning I’m also against sneaky and forceful gay lobbying. They are making everyone victims of social and familial injustice. They are the ones constantly ignoring laws and that includes bullying, trespassing, threats, and lies. Speaking of rights, don’t invoke “rights” as a trump card when it’s designated only to a special interest group.

                    • Lutesuite

                      Speaking of rights, don’t invoke “rights” as a trump card when it’s designated only to a special interest group.

                      You mean like the way marriage was once only designated to the heterosexual group? Thankfully, that is finally changing.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Not so thankfully, the redefinition of marriage is destroying humanity along with the rest of the world, and is soon to allow marriage to grasshoppers and marriage between parents and their own children or grandchildren. You’re so sick. Then again being a sick doctor means you’re also a lousy patient.

                    • chillinout.

                      Gays are rounding up tens of millions of christ-stains and incinerating them in ovens??? Where? I want pictures!!!

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      If I send them to you, you’ll think they are fabricated. Search throughout the sources and you’ll find them. However, I sent sources to those like you who always want further evidence. As I always said before, I don’t have to convince liars of the truth. The gays are born that way? Prove it to me. By the way, in your photograph you like an angry retard trolling this site.

                    • Atilla The Possum

                      Oh, grow up! You cretins can dish it out but you can’t take it!
                      Get lost!

                    • Kara Connor

                      *points at you and laughs*
                      You can’t even manage decent ad hominem!

                    • Bob

                      Therrrre ya go again! Up voting your own posts!

                      It’d be quite enjoyable to watch you and a seven year old in a verbal fight. Personally, I think you eventually could wear down the seven year old, Kara.

                    • Atilla The Possum

                      Bob, Kara Connor has the memory of a house fly. She thinks I am the only one accusing her of voting up her own posts. She refuses to answer the question as to whether or not it is true. She dances around the issue like a Riverdancer on high concentrated glucose!
                      Ms Connor’s mission IS to wear us down. It’s the devil’s favourite trick.
                      I wonder if she’s ever read about the Three Little Pigs … and the Big Bad Wolf’s attempt to blow down the brick house!

                    • chillinout.

                      Therrrrre ya go again! Making up irrelevant topics to deflect from the stupidity your entire cult spews. Not to mention, your jealousy that Kara gets upvotes and you simply don’t. What a pathetic old brat!

                    • Atilla The Possum

                      Oh, very mature of you! NOT!
                      For one of your fingers pointing at me, toerag, there are 1.5 BILLION pointing right back at you laughing just as hard.
                      Never mind a decent ad hominem, you can’t even manage to take a decent hint and go away!

                    • Kara Connor

                      The differences are that a) you are wrong and motivated by ill will toward LGBT people, and b) I don’t care.
                      I note that you haven’t even had the intellectual honesty to admit that the supposed marriage referred to in this article is in fact not a legal marriage at all. It is a Buddhist ceremony and is only meaningful (or not) in a religious sense.

                    • Atilla The Possum

                      Ill will? Towards LGBT people?? What bullshizzle! My Khyber Pass!
                      LGBT people are immature. They take offence at anyone who has the ”audacity” to disagree with them (including their own) and they sue innocent people for holding fast to their principles. Of course, you don’t read these things in the papers because LGBT activists want people to believe that they are all ”in this together” … in a manner of speaking and any opposing voices are gagged!
                      If you want to know who is wrong and motivated by ill will towards LGBT people, watch Islamic State take them to the highest height with their hands cuffed behind their backs and throw them off to their deaths! Liberals admire Islam but only because it ain’t Christian and it is trendy to not be beastly to anyone wearing either a rainbow badge or a hijab!
                      Hey! Being thrown from the highest height to your death just because you are homosexual is a lot quicker than having a Christian/Muslim/Yazidi head being slowly sliced through with a knife by a bloke with an English accent and an education similar to yours … which says a lot!
                      Anne Boleyn had it easy, lady!
                      The sin of Sodomy is what it says: A. Sin. You can cover it in icing, sprinkle it with fairy dust and pretty it up until your fingers drop off but it does not alter the fact that it is WRONG!
                      In Thailand, Buddhism is the majority religion. Perhaps any marriage that takes place in a Buddhist temple there is legal in the eyes of the state without a secular judge or registrar – ask any celebrity who did the same thing i.e. get married in a Buddhist temple. Years ago, a marriage in a church, synagogue, temple, gurduwara or mosque in whatever country was legally bound in their registers until – in the grey midst of time – it may or may not have changed.

                    • Kara Connor

                      If people discriminate in a manner contrary to business laws for public accommodations they can expect to be sued. Then you attempt to justify your level of discrimination by pointing to ISIS as being worse. That doesn’t even deserve a response. And opposing voices are not gagged. Look through the comments on this article. You are free to say what you want unless you threaten violence or intimidation. Free speech, however, is not consequence-free speech. If you say something that makes you look bigoted, you’ll likely be called on it.

                      As for sin, it has no meaning outside of your religion, and your religion has no bearing on civil law. Sin is an imaginary disease invented to sell you the imaginary “cure”. You bought it.

                      The “three person marriage” is not legal in Thailand, period. They don’t even have same sex marriage for two people.

                    • Atilla The Possum

                      Heard about the Korean woman who went around the world ”marrying” buildings? Or the bloke who married his motorbike?
                      All. True. Deal. With. It!

                    • Kara Connor

                      Yes. None of those were legally recognized. Thanks for playing.

                    • Atilla The Possum

                      Some day very soon, they will be…
                      And you are the one who is playing at something … I believe it’s called Sillybeggers.
                      I am not playing at being a Catholic because I AM A CATHOLIC!

                    • Kara Connor

                      Your sect os irrelevant to this discussion. As are your camel’s nose fallacies. I challenged you to show any jurisdiction where the laws were changes as you claim is inevitable, and you can’t produce a single one.

                    • Atilla The Possum

                      Crisis Magazine is a CATHOLIC website, discussing issues that affect CATHOLICS.
                      Who do you think you are with your challenges and references to camel’s nose – if I am a camel’s nose, then you are Pinocchio’s nose which, if you lie down flat, we could tie Old Glory to the top and it could be seen from space!
                      I challenge you to predict the future. Screaming Lord Sutch, the founder of the UK’s political party Monster Raving Loony predicted Pet Passports in his party political manifesto in the early 1970’s and was laughed at.
                      Now, thanks to the EU, we have Pet Passports!
                      Much of what was predicted and laughed at decades ago have come to fruition: the idea that anyone could fly – the Wright Brothers proved the naysayers wrong. That body parts could be transplanted from one human to another – Christian Barnaard in South Africa, 1960’s. A baby could be conceived in a test tube somewhere in Oldham, UK – 1978, Louise Brown became the world’s first Test Tube Baby born in Oldham, UK. That pictures could move and have sound – 1929 saw The Jazz Singer with Al Jolson. That man could land on the moon – Neil Armstrong 1969. That in England and Wales, you could marry in any building such as, for instance, a soccer stadium, back garden, circus tent, supermarket, horse racing course or in the middle of a busy motorway. This happened in the 1990’s and the one who helped sponsor the bill was an MP called Gyles Brandreth – a TV broadcaster and writer when he wasn’t playing at being a Conservative Member of Parliament!
                      All these ideas were laughed at. Nobody’s laughing now because they are ”the norm”.
                      So, in the future, if anyone wishes to marry their cat, dog, hamster, pet monkey, car, building, bus stop, teddy bear or all of the above and more… dare we laugh out loud at such things as ‘preposterously outlandish’?
                      Challenge completed, Job done. Over and out, Bored now.

                    • Kara Connor

                      I keep asking you for one, just one example. You have singularly failed to produce one.

                    • Atilla The Possum

                      There you go again! Not only are you supercilious and narcissistic but obstinate with it. Proof positive that Hell is missing a devil but has turned up on this site only to give grief.
                      I’ve given you several examples of things that were considered laughable and (many, many decades ago) were opined to neither enter into the statute books of law or become part of normal life.. or do you not understand English! The point being that what is to stop civil law from coming to pass when anybody who wants to marry anything animal, vegetable or mineral in single figures or the entire Etihad Stadium full being given Royal Assent into law!
                      Oh, you’ve not answered the question: Have you or have you not voted up your own posts? Yes or no?
                      Confession is good for the soul … but you wouldn’t have a clue about that.
                      Try playing on the M60!

                    • Kara Connor

                      So you still haven’t come up with an example of a jurisdiction where polygamy, bestiality etc. have arisen as a result of marriage equality. Yawn. Stop trying to wheedle out of the actual question by answering ones I never asked, and explain how animals, vegetables or minerals can consent to a civil marriage contract.

                      And now you wish me dead. I think I already mentioned animus. You’ve just exemplified it. I find your viewpoint untenable and discriminatory, but bear you no ill will. Yet I, according to you, am a devil.

                    • chillinout.

                      Andddd possum pounder has discovered online dictionaries to help him spell big boy words! Three cheers for possum pounder!!!

                    • Lutesuite

                      Kara, these are factual sites. The LGBT are another bullish and Nazish organization, so who are the fundamentalists? They are worse than SIS.

                      Right. ‘Cuz starting a support group for gay kids who are being bullied, and corporations making arguments in favour of marriage equality are both much much worse than the things ISIS is doing.

                      You’re hilarious.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Wrong! First, Kara can speak for herself. Second, you’re arrogant and blind as a bat. All this gay lobbying is what’s bullish. And third, you’re a liar.

                    • chillinout.

                      In other words, you’ve been exposed for the lying idiot you are, and you can’t bark at more than one person at a time. How many times a week do you beat your wife? Or your horsebride… I can’t imagine any (living) woman being interested in you

                    • Atilla The Possum

                      You have future strengths…

                  • Atilla The Possum

                    ”fundamentalist” ???
                    Pot. Kettle. Black.

                    • Kara Connor

                      And yet again you have no valid rebuttal. You really are rather pathetic.

                    • Atilla The Possum

                      You don’t understand English, do you? Nor can you write it.
                      Either I am ”really pathetic” or I am ”rather pathetic”. Either. Or. Either. Or.
                      Understand?
                      And you tend to ”vote up” your own puerile posts – or, if it isn’t you, you are putting a gun to your pet vulture’s head to vote it up or else no roadkill for supper!
                      As for ”pathetic”, take a look at your own reflection to see what ”pathetic” looks like … either in the bathroom mirror or your preferred place: the puddles in the road.
                      Or the bottom of the pond….

                    • Kara Connor

                      Show me my post you claim I up voted. I note that yet again you are all ad hominem and no logical rebuttal.

                    • Atilla The Possum

                      You are, as we say in Northern England, all fur coat and no knickers!
                      Prove to us here that YOU ARE NOT THE ONE VOTING UP YOUR OWN POSTS! Come on, if you think you’re brave enough! Answer the question before you commence throwing ”challenges” in our direction for your tasteless version of entertainment!
                      Heck! We can’t possibly put voting up your own posts past you – you are narcissistic enough.
                      And you can stick your ‘ad hominem’ ad infinitum ad nauseam where the sun does not shine, too!
                      I’m Boooorred noooow! Go away. Please!

                    • Kara Connor

                      You made the claim, you need to prove it. Your logic is as abundant as rocking horse c***p as we say in the East Midlands, and your counterpoints are “bobbins” as they used to say when I lived in Manchester. And don’t characterize all Northerners as being as ignorant of logical debate and Latin as you seem to be.

                    • Atilla The Possum

                      Wow, this is buzzin’! Insults by the dozen, snobbery, narcissism, logic as abundant as clothes horse shizzle. Look, I wasn’t the only one on this site to say that you vote up your own posts – if you can bother your powfagged porcelain cushion to look any further than your own inflated delusions of grandeur!
                      I must be getting to you. It must be true, then, that you do vote your posts up. Why not give an answer when asked a question … or is that beneath you, Your Royal Lowness!
                      Good. It’s working. No answer so far. Tumbleweed is abundant in the so-called East Midlands …
                      By the way, we don’t say ”bobbins” in Manchester as much, nowadays – or are you such a fossil in your attitudes towards your fellow country folk by maintaining that we still say ” ‘ecky thump!” and wander the streets wearing flat caps and drink Boddingtons and still live in places similar to Coronation Street. LOL!!!!! Do keep up, duck or cluck or lady muck whatever you call yourselves in the (air quotes) ”East Midlands” aka the Dunces Corner of football and everything else!
                      Perhaps the best Manc way to describe your twisted logic is … hanging! Canadians say it better when they describe the likes of you as having future strengths…
                      Come on. Answer. Do you or do you not vote up your own posts? Yes or No?
                      Until you do, mucky ducky, you DO vote up your own posts. No-one with even a nanometre of a brain cell would.

                    • Kara Connor

                      I have never knowingly upvoted my own posts, and if I have ever inadvertently hit the button on my phone, then it would be in my own name, I don’t post to Twitter under another name. Hence, unless you see Kara Connor upvoting Kara Connor (which would only be possible for me to do once) then it isn’t me upvoting myself.

                    • Kara Connor

                      Well they said it when I was back in Manchester in February.

                      I have pointed out to you that the burden of proof is upon those claiming that their particular god exists: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

                      How do you know Thor doesn’t exist? Simply stick the word “Thor” in any claim you make regarding the existence of your god and you’ll see. Every religion also uses the circular logic of claiming theirs is the one true one by using the appeal to authority fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority usually citing their “holy book” or teachings.

                    • chillinout.

                      You’re the kind of dude who gets his face knocked in when he opens his mouth in public. No wonder you hide behind your computer screen

                    • Andy_Kreiss

                      Saw this on my dashboard, and it made me LOL. Remember how confused the Idiocracy was about Mrs. Obama’s comment about being “really proud of her country.”? It’s like they’re completely confused by common figures of speech, when the TV or the radio tells them to be confused.

                      And I gave you another upvote, that’s four now, just to get our simple friend Atilla even more confused. Really confused, even.

                    • Kara Connor

                      Yes but you might be me 🙂 Oh check your FB PMs.

                    • Andy_Kreiss

                      Saw that last night. I wonder what Atilla’s so angry about. Seems very disturbed.

              • MarcAlcan

                Sorry but this term marriage equality for gays is just totally dumb. Like I said, you can marry the opposite sex and no one would stop you. Many homosexuals have done that in the past.
                So please, enough of this brain dead arguments of yours.

                As for it leading to what we expect to happen, of course it is not there yet. The chaos is just starting. We are just beginning to see the legislation of false kinds of marriage.

                Give it time and everyone else who wants to get their perversion validated will come to the fore because that is the logical conclusion.

          • .
            CAUTION:

            Accurate information is poison to hateful bigotry.

            BEWARE!

            =8^o

            .

            • ForChristAlone

              EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
              spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
              Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
              terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
              imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
              mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
              sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
              discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
              vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
              in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
              Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
              Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.+.

            • GG

              The only bigots here are the “gays” promoting sickness and evil as virtue.

        • Lutesuite

          “Marriage equality” never happened in Europe. Never.

          List of countries with marriage equality at the link below. Please make note of the number of European nations included:

          http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/19/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/

          Have you even the slightest acquaintance with this thing known as “reality”?

          • CarlsPatrick

            I’m sure you don’t grasp any reality at all because you’re a pathetic liar who believes his own lies.

            • Lutesuite

              I’m sure you don’t grasp any reality at all because you’re a pathetic liar who believes his own lies.

              What lie are you accusing me of telling. CarlsPatrick? Is same sex marriage not legally recognized in any of the countries listed there?

              • CarlsPatrick

                Sheesh! Believing your own lies again. Whether SSM is recognized or not, the entire scheme to lobby it is a lie. You like believing lies so much, you’re even convinced you’re telling me the truth.

                • Lutesuite

                  Sheesh! Believing your own lies again.

                  Exactly which “lies” would those be, CarlsPatrick?

                  You wrote “‘Marriage equality’ never happened in Europe. Never.”

                  I provided you a list of European countries in which marriage equality exists at this very moment.

                  You then accuse me of lying.

                  Just how does that work, CarlsPatrick? Walk us thru the “thought” process by which you arrive at the conclusion that, after you make a blatantly false statement, and I correct you, I am the one who lied.

                  • CarlsPatrick

                    I said in Europe’s history, marriage equality never happened until now. Europe is now spiralling into its own pit of self-destruction. That is a self-evident fact you continue to deny which makes you a liar.

                    • Lutesuite

                      I said in Europe’s history, marriage equality never happened until now.

                      No you didn’t. Look, your post is just a few inches above. This is what you wrote:

                      “Marriage equality” never happened in Europe. Never.

                      Stop lying.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      I stand corrected that marriage equality never happened. You’re the liar here claiming all this time you’re an atheist only to be discovered as a Muslim apologist.

                    • Lutesuite

                      I stand corrected that marriage equality never happened.

                      Good for you. It’s really weird that you never knew this before, being a “researcher” and all, but never mind. You know now.

                      You’re the liar here claiming all this time you’re an atheist only to be discovered as a Muslim apologist.

                      People here might not know why you think this, so why don’t you tell them? They could use a good laugh, I’m sure.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      You admitted it in another post. You suddenly revealed your real name. Not that I care what it is, but it’s a good indication of what you really are.

                    • Lutesuite

                      You admitted it in another post. You suddenly revealed your real name. Not that I care what it is, but it’s a good indication of what you
                      really are.

                      So because I have a name traditionally associated with Muslim culture (Faizal Ali), that means I must be a practicing Muslim?

                      Tell me, what is an example of an atheist name?

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      I’m not just thinking this. I know this. And I have told others this. You revealed your name in another post. It was a Muslim name. A few people already know about this I’m sure.

                    • Lutesuite

                      You revealed your name in another post. It was a Muslim name.

                      Yes. So what is your point? Can an atheist not have a Muslim name?

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Drawing attention to yourself then? The only reason to change your to a Muslin is to join the radicals which is expected.

                    • Lutesuite

                      The only reason to change your to a Muslin is to join the radicals which is expected.

                      What makes you think I changed my name?

                      For a “researcher” you really have a hard time figuring things out for yourself.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      It’s very easy for me. I don’t copy and paste sources and fall for the first lie I come across like you do. You just admit earlier you changed your name. Liar.

                    • Lutesuite

                      It’s very easy for me. I don’t copy and paste sources and fall for the first lie I come across like you do. You just admit earlier you changed your name. Liar.

                      No, you don’t copy or paste, or base your claims on anything remotely connected to reality. You just make things up in your imagination, and then convince yourself they’re real.

                      Like this claim that I admitted that I had changed my name. Exactly where did I do that? Exact quotation, please. After all, I’m sure you wouldn’t want people to think you’re a liar, right?

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      I’m discussing you. You’re the one who copies and pastes. My claims all had basis so far. Liar.

                    • Lutesuite

                      My claims all had basis so far.

                      You mean like that one that “‘Marriage equality’ never happened in Europe. Never,.” for example?

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Last time I quoted you, you denied it. Actually He’s everybody’s God.

                    • Lutesuite

                      Last time I quoted you, you denied it.

                      Where and when was this?

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      I don’t need to convince a liar of the truth.

                    • Lutesuite

                      I don’t need to convince a liar of the truth.

                      Not even when the liar is yourself, right? You just keep piling up the lies. First you claim that I said I changed my name, and now you say you provided me with the quotation to prove this, but I denied it. If you were telling the truth, it would be very easy for you to verify both of those claims. But, since you’re lying, it is impossible.

                      Obviously that particular one of God’s commandments means nothing to you. You’d better book a double session next time you go to confession. You’ve got a lot of sins to unburden yourself of.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Trying to pin upon me about my faith that you know nothing about, plus you’re trying to use reverse psychology with another one of your lies. Another one of your useless tactics you learned in psychology school? Didn’t you mention somewhere you wee a doctor? Life and family also mean nothing to you since you’re such a proponent of destroying them.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Maybe I did mention it somewhere, however I do not swear by it. I was probably writing on the fly. But I know for sure you admitted being a Muslin apologist.

                    • Lutesuite

                      Maybe I did mention it somewhere, however I do not swear by it. I was probably writing on the fly. But I know for sure you admitted being a Muslin apologist.

                      You know “for sure”? So when and where did I “admit” that? Because I am certain I did not, for the simple fact that I am not a Muslim apologist.

                      Here are a couple discussions in Catholic World Report where you and another member accuse me of being a Muslim apologist.

                      http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3653/walk_for_life_west_coast_bigger_younger_and_more_energetic_every_year.aspx#comment-1826589810

                      http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3645/will_a_future_pope_be_forced_to_flee_rome.aspx#comment-1825040005

                      There, I’ve made it easy for you. I’ve gone and provided the citations. See how easy that it? You should do it sometimes. OK, now kindly show where I admitted to being a Muslim apologist.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      It’s no accusation. Make it easy for yourself and quit lying.

                    • Lutesuite

                      Stop ducking, CarlsPatric. Where did I “admit” to being a Muslim apologist? You’ve already been caught out on your lie that you had quoted me saying this. I say you’re still lying when you say I made this admission at all. Why don’t you prove me wrong? I’ve given you the links. All you need to is cut and paste the part where I make that admission. Easy peasy, right? If you’re not lying, that is…..

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      I keep ducking because you keep throwing lies at me. I have proven you wrong many times. Since you like trolling CWR so much go back and find it. It’s impossible to cut and paste because you will just come back and say so otherwise. And I remember now the person on CWR who you say accused you of being Muslim apologist. The fact is, this person actually found you out. So it’s no accusation. It’s the truth.

                    • Lutesuite

                      It’s impossible to cut and paste because you will just come back and say so otherwise.

                      Not if you give the link to the webpage on which this alleged “admission” took place. Go on, CarlsPatrick. Expose me as a liar, if you have the means to do so. Otherwise, it’s pretty clear who the liar is.

                      And I remember now the person on CWR who you say accused you of being Muslim apologist. The fact is, this person actually found you out. So it’s no accusation. It’s the truth.

                      Well, again, same thing applies: Provide a link to where this person, as you allege, exposed me as a Muslim apologist. Otherwise, we’ll just have to conclude this is yet another one of your pathetic, transparent lies.

                    • Kara Connor

                      His standard tactic is to claim you said something, then singularly fail to produce any supporting evidence ot be able to quote where you allegedly said it.

                    • Lutesuite

                      His standard tactic is to claim you said something, then singularly fail
                      to produce any supporting evidence ot be able to quote where you
                      allegedly said it.

                      Yes. Except you missed the part where he says he has just produced it, as if simply saying this will fool anyone into thinking he has actually done so. That always strikes me as the funniest part of his act.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      I don’t have to prove a thing to you. You believe in lies, there is nothing I need to do to convince you. What is more important is that I know the truth and I do not need to get other people involved to rally on my behalf. And by the way, you also mentioned you would deny service to a Christian. Are you willing to deny that too and expect to cut and paste a link for you?

                    • Lutesuite

                      And by the way, you also mentioned you would deny service to a
                      Christian. Are you willing to deny that too and expect to cut and paste a
                      link for you?

                      Why yes, actually, if you would be so kind. A good researcher, which you claim to be, would know that when one makes a claim, one should also provide the information to support it. But, of course, since you’re no more a good researcher than you’re a three-toed sloth, you don’t know that.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      You’re more funnier than a screen door on a submarine.

                    • Lutesuite

                      You’re more funnier….

                      Didn’t you just say you were a writer? In which language would that be?

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Why should I provide you with information on myself to prove something to you? Why don’t you ask me to prove the color of my underpants? Want me to take a picture and show you? Or will you turn it around and say it was photoshopped?

      • John Flaherty

        “But we do know this much: what is seemingly inconceivable to all of us
        right now, including to progressives themselves, can become the dogmatic
        position of progressives in a generation. …”

        Kara, I was in college when Ellen Degeneres “came out” on national TV around 1997. Even then, a few warned that LGBTQ logic offered no real prohibition against multiple husbands or wives. Reigning progressive voices condemned them for “ignorant, medieval bigots”. They insisted that gays divorcing could NEVER happen. They insisted that we all needed to be “more tolerant”.Now, in the last 3 years, I’ve heard of two gay or lesbian couples divorcing, while instead of being “tolerant” of gays, we’re ordered to “accept” gay marriage, just like a heterosexual couple.
        It took less than a generation, less than 20 years even, for this move to happen.
        Especially given how progressives basically refuse to admit to the madness of more radical strains of Islam, I suspect your barb about girls marrying men could happen within 10 years.

        For the sake of everyone, I hope I’m wrong.

        • chillinout.

          “gays divorcing could never happen”

          Conservatives are literally the definition of pathological liars

          • MarcAlcan

            Conservatives are literally the definition of pathological liars

            Hey, but that is you exactly.
            You lied in your reply to me. So I gather this is just normal for you.

      • GG

        Consent does not make evil into good.

        • Kara Connor

          And blatant assertions don’t prove a thing. You fail again.

          • GG

            Huh? You are the one making false assertions here. Consent is not a magic word that changes reality.

            • Kara Connor

              This seems difficult for you to understand, but marriage requires two consenting, unrelated adults. Children, animals and inanimate objects are incapable of consent. And you still haven’t managed to find a single example of a jurisdiction going down your fallacious slippery slope. You have nothing but animus.

              • Bob

                “This seems difficult for you to understand, but marriage requires two consenting, unrelated adults. Children, animals and inanimate objects are incapable of consent. ”

                Says who……YOU??!!

                Show me who made you “queen of the marriage rules?” And that your redefinition of marriage is the only applicable one. Pretty arrogant of you.

                So marri

                • Kara Connor

                  So you believe children, animals and your car can consent? I think you’ll find contract law excludes that possibility. And I find your belief that they can to be rather disturbing.

                  • Bob

                    You didn’t answer either of my questions now, did you?

                  • GG

                    Joking? Contract law is like the wind. It can change depending on which pervert is wearing a black robe that day.

                    • Kara Connor

                      So you think children, animals or cars can sign contracts. You don’t seem to be at home when Mr. Reality calls round.

                    • mon38228

                      So polygamy is acceptable to you as long as there is consent and they are of legal age. Should popular opinion be the basis for the changing of laws in this country? Is truth immutable or relative? Let me guess…your emotions dominate your thought process.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      So polygamy is acceptable to you as long as there is consent

                      And Kara is struck dumb.
                      Funny how truth has that effect.

                    • GG

                      Logic is not “her” strong suit.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Actually, I think she would be more than capable of logic too were she not so WILFULLY irrational. I think it is a choice to abandon logic because the cause she is espousing is unable to support. The choice is logic or agree with the legitimization of homosexuality. She chose the latter so had to ditch the former.

                    • Atilla The Possum

                      Well, you certainly aren’t at home when Mr. Reality calls round… even though the lights are on and he posted a flyer through the door…
                      You are seriously in need of help.

                    • Kara Connor

                      At least I can compose my own posts without plagiarizing. Do you have an actual point to make? (I’m suspecting not since you chose ad hominem)

                    • Atilla The Possum

                      Come on, now! Come to terms with the FACT that this is a Catholic website, that the Catholic Church will not change Her Teachings about Marriage/Holy Matrimony and you just gotta deal with it! End of. Final. Go away! Take a hike! There’s the door!

                      Reading laughably sad posts like yours convinces me time and time again that Satan is missing a devil! They appear to gravitate towards sites like these. Hmmm … like head lice to clean hair!
                      Your like take twisted, sickening pleasure in arguing the toss – even when your arguments are plagiarised from the Loony Liberal Lefty Obama-ites that are invading Western society like a festering, cancerous cyst! Pope Francis – and any exorcist worth his Holy Salt – warns us against arguing with the devil; not because we are giving in to Ole Red Legs by walking away from the argument but that the pleasure the devil has in arguing is his twisted determination to ensure that the one whom he is arguing with becomes just like the Father of Lies and behaves likewise by losing one’s temper, lashes out and does something one will later regret.
                      My point is – you have lost the argument.
                      Deal with it.

                    • chillinout.

                      The point is you’re a lying and cowardly bigot. You’re bitter because you’ve been exposed as the puss stain you are.
                      Deal with it, teabag

                    • MarcAlcan

                      And the point is so far you have not written anything intelligent. But, there is always hope.
                      You can try again.

                      As for Atilla being puss stain, that you write in this manner actually points to you being the one.

                    • GG

                      Ah, the homosexual demons are out now. The world ought to see exactly what we are up against. keep posting.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Well, truly it is you who was not home when Mr Reality came around.
                      Here’s reality – you are either a male or female not some corrupted version in between.

                    • Kara Connor

                      Really. Explain CAIS, or this:

                      Ovaries and Female Phenotype in a Girl with 46,XY Karyotype and Mutations in the CBX2 Gene http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680992/

                      Successful pregnancy in a patient with a 46,XY karyotype
                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12137885

                      Successful pregnancy in a pure gonadal dysgenesis with karyotype 46, XY patient (Swyer’s syndrome)
                      http://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0013/ea0013p253.htm

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Yes, and we call them abnormalities.

                    • Kara Connor

                      My point is that, as ever, you are factually incorrect. You asserted “you are either a male or female not some corrupted version in between”. I’ve just produced examples which show that yet again, you are wrong. It I really bugging you that you are constantly unable to counter argue successfully, isn’t it?

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Yes, you have produced some corrupted version in between.
                      So the homosexual is a corrupted version? The homosexual is an abnormality? You agree with that?

                      Since I counter argue successfully, then no it does not bother me.

                      I do however agree with you that there is such an abnormality called homosexuality.

                    • GG

                      That is called pathology.

                    • Dillon Francis

                      sexual deviants who suffer from psycho-sexual disorders will not accept your true logic. mainstream media, the educational system, and the ruling elites of the west tell them it is now glorious to be perverts. Next will be pedophilia, already started just look at shia labouf and the 13 year old girl in the Sia song, and zoophilia will come right after. Finally we will move on to necrophilia and that will be glorious too! The death of the west couldn’t come any sooner 🙂

                    • MarcAlcan

                      As Saint Paul said, they have traded the truth for the lie – so God has left them in their perversion. He respects our will and it is their will to be mired in this filth.

                    • GG

                      What makes you think signing a contract is the only standard? 20 years ago if you told a normal person two men would be in charge of little children acting out their perverted ideology they would have laughed and used your argument about the law protecting them. And now today the law protects perverts. See? The law is only as good as the people interpreting it.

                    • Kara Connor

                      Appeal to tradition. Another logical fallacy

                    • GG

                      Nonsense. I am appealing you reason. You think reason is mere tradition?

                    • Kara Connor

                      No. You aren’t using reason, you are using a logical fallacy.

                    • GG

                      Save it for the credulous. You hate reason because it means you must stop doing what you do.

                  • MarcAlcan

                    So you believe children, animals and your car can consent?

                    And since when has consent been the be all and end all of what is true and good?
                    If someone consented to be killed, would that cease to be murder?

                    • Kara Connor

                      Consent, and the ability to do so, are the very basis of civil law contracts. Stop trying to derail.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Indeed. And if the law somehow changed the aged of consent, then children can consent.
                      And like I said above, if someone consented to be killed, then you have a murder contract and as far as your view goes, it is perfectly legal and good. Too dumb Kara. Too dumb.

                    • Kara Connor

                      A murder contract is not legally enforceable. You fail again. Your talk about changing the age for sexual consent is an attempt at derailment. That is nit a civil law contract. It stipulates the age below which a sex act becomes illegal if performed on the minor by an adult. You can’t even derail effectively. Give it up.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Helloooo, you just told me consent justifies everything.

                    • Kara Connor

                      You said that. I said it was necessary for a civil contract. Don’t lie.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      I am not lying. You said that consent is what is important.

                      Then you must have seen the hole your in and so you came back with civil contract.

                      But like I pointed out earlier, if you can change the terms of the contract, then what’s to stop us changing the terms of contract.

                      Now you shift to what is legal But what is legal is not necessarily good or true. It just means that a few men decided that this is how things will go.

                      In China, the state can forcibly abort your child against your will. That is perfectly legal.

                      In Saudi Arabia, it is perfectly legal to behead those they feel should beheaded.

                    • GG

                      Logic bounces off the heads of those in league with sodomy. They cannot follow a morally coherent argument.

                    • Lutesuite

                      In China, the state can forcibly abort your child against your will. That is perfectly legal.

                      In Saudi Arabia, it is perfectly legal to behead those they feel should be beheaded.

                      So what’s your point? if you’re saying laws should not be changed (which is what your argument amounts to) then does that mean those laws should remain on the books forever?

                      BTW, I wouldn’t be too smug about Saudi Arabia. Utah just voted to bring back the firing squad.

                    • GG

                      The point is laws may be just or unjust. Simply because a law is enacted is not evidence it is consistent with logic or goodness.

                      If you place your strange moral reasoning simply in the law then you are a type of fascist.

                    • Lutesuite

                      If you place your strange moral reasoning simply in the law then you are a type of fascist.

                      Umm, I’m the one arguing that laws against SSM should be dropped. You’re the one arguing that these laws should be retained.

                      So, sorry, who is the fascist, then?

                    • GG

                      Uh, you want more vice and call it “freedom”. I want less vice and that is freedom. I do not want the gaystopo telling me sickness is health and teaching that to children. You want to violate children’s rights. That is tyranny.

                    • Lutesuite

                      What are you going to do about it, GG?

                    • MarcAlcan

                      So what’s your point? if you’re saying laws should not be changed (which is what your argument amounts to) then does that mean those laws should remain on the books forever?

                      I am saying that you can’t argue from the point of law regarding right and wrong because there are clearly laws that stupid, bad and detrimental to society.
                      And that is the stupid thing you have been doing all this time in this forums – falling back on the law as if it is the bedrock of what is right and wrong.
                      And the fact that UTAH just brought back the firing squad just proves my point. If you are for the law, then you must be for that too.

                    • Lutesuite

                      I am saying that you can’t argue from the point of law regarding right and wrong…

                      Well, then, it’s a good thing that I’m not doing that.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      That is exactly what you are doing.

                    • Lutesuite

                      That is exactly what you are doing.

                      Show me what I wrote that leads you to conclude that.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Your talk about changing the age for sexual consent is an attempt at derailment

                      Actually it isn’t. If the age of consent changed, then the child can consent. Or is that too hard for you to understand.

                      It stipulates the age below which a sex act becomes illegal if performed on the minor by an adult.

                      Precisely. If the age of consent is lowered to 12 as in other countries, then it ceases to be paedophilia.
                      You get what I mean? And if it is permissible for the two to have sex, then who says we can’t change the rules regarding this.
                      I mean you changed the rules did you not? If you can do so, so can others.

                    • GG

                      You are a slipshod thinker here. The law is whatever some kook in a black dress says it is. If we have good people in charge we get good laws. If we have moral idiots in charge we get perverse laws. Anything can change when we are relativists including the law. Stop the propaganda.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      By the way, your posted article from the FBI about the war on Christianity is totally false. There is a war going on whether you think it’s on our minds only. The feds are a bunch of liars and yet you follow them.

                    • Kara Connor

                      Any black helicopters over your house?

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Helicopters are not required. There is something called lobbying, technology and surveillance cameras. Hitler took his time as well before he suddenly struck. As for you serving and supporting everything false, you’ll be backstabbed too one day if you think you’re any safer.

                    • Kara Connor

                      We are already being front-stabbed, both by the repeated attempts to deny us marriage equality, and the plethora of laws intended to enable businesses and public accommodations to turn away me, my wife and children if they claim they do it on religious grounds. We can also be fired in many states if our boss discovers we are married, because there are no protections against that. We are also far more likely to be the victims of hate crimes. How do you think the overwhelmingly larger majority of Christians are being victimized? Note that not being allowed to ignore laws, getting tax breaks others don’t, and not being able to beliefs on others by denying them legal equality, proselytize in government institutions or via public funding is not being victimized and nor is it a war on you.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Well, it’s tough luck if you’re denied marriage equality, isn’t it. Just because you want it so badly doesn’t mean you have the right to have it. If it’s just a piece of paper, then why do you want it so bad? Your problem is, your community has too many rights, but you always want extra. If you honored marriage the way it should be traditionally, you wouldn’t have a problem. Undeniably there is a war on Christianity and you and your community continue bringing this battle to everybody’s doorstep. In some states, any gay person can waltz into any work establishment and force their flags and colors otherwise they’ll be reported or shut down. That is trespassing and an abuse of power on their part. Now they are slithering through many channels to gain assistance from corporations. Having said all that, it’s another fascist movement.

                    • Kara Connor

                      Actually it isn’t “tough luck”. It is unconstitutional, under the 14th Amendment, and has been so ruled by every Federal court which considered that basis. We will see what SCOTUS says in June.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Unconstitutional to you. Even SCOTUS says otherwise, it still won’t change the facts that all foregoers of tolerance are the ones intolerant. You community wants to dictate how anyone should think and only listen to what pro-gay marriage people think. Plus it won’t change the fact that America is spiralling downward. The events of 9/11 and ISIS are no coincidence.

                    • Kara Connor

                      Unconstitutional according to every Federal court which has tested it against the 14th Amendment. Save your Revelations and end times talk for someone who is gullible enough to believe it.

                    • GG

                      It is whichever perv in a black dress is in charge that matters. The law is only as good as the one interpreting it these days.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      It’s unconstitutional to subject children to false impressions leading them to major psychological harm and development. We both know gay couple cannot have children naturally, So why the fabrication? The 14th Amendment never stated that. The Federal courts are just trying to redefine it. Gullible? My Revelations are factual. You’re the one who’s gullible thinking this is all fine and dandy and you’re making children gullible to this. Your community is single-handedly destroying our country.

                    • Kara Connor

                      You are out of rational arguments. I’m looking forward to your having a meltdown in June

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      And you’re running out of lies to tell. Actually, it will be a meltdown for all of America. We have ISIS on our doorsteps thanks to all this garbage. 9/11 was no coincidence either.

                    • Kara Connor

                      Your irrational beliefs continue.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Just as well as your lies continue, lying to yourself and your children. There is nothing irrational about telling the truth.

                    • Kara Connor

                      You have ISIS due to the after effects of a thoroughly messed up strategy by Bush and Cheney, who had absolutely no plan for what to do after the second Gulf War, other than make money for Blackwater and Halliburton. Oh, and invading Iraq on a lie. WMDs found yet? If you think ISIS is the fault of LGBT people you simply reinforce your status as irrational. You haven’t managed a single rebuttal which isn’t based on your own groundless assertions. Calling me a liar is a red flag highlighting the intellectual paucity of your position, end-timer.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      American politics did play a big part of it, but then again, it was also due to greed and lack of Christianity as it is now explaining why America is falling apart just like ancient Rome did. When it’s thrown out the window, karma attacks in many forms including terrorism, shooting in schools, children no longer having respect for their parent, teachers or elders (all this has been prophecized whether you believe it or not). Calling me irrational is the red flag highlighting your lack of intelligence. I in fact did manage several rebuttals which are actually targeted on your groundless efforts to convince me that what you’re doing is a good thing, including lying to yourself ands to your children, and it’s your children who will be suffering as the result of your lies.

                    • Kara Connor

                      My intelligence is almost certainly well ahead of yours. I have a Ph.D. In Particle Physics. That’s why I actually know how to read research papers and evaluate the source and content. You should put down your bible and try it.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Whoopie!!! So you have a Ph.D. Suddenly you’re the expert. All kinds of professionals claim they have “skills”. Doctors included, yet they can’t even cure cancer. Instead they kill patients. Just nothing but textbook memorization which is what academic students to these days. My research skills far outweigh yours. I’m a writer with the bulk of it being research. Professionals claim they can source and yet they drown themselves in their own academics just like university students these days who think they are better than everyone else because they go to university. I’ll keep my bible, thank-you because I don’t abandon the truth. My faith does not abhor science. In fact it funds many scientific studies. The problem with secular scientists though, is they claim have proof or disproof, but have to rely on theories too often.

                    • Kara Connor

                      You claim to embrace science yet believe 9/11and ISIS are caused by the US not properly embracing Christianity. Think about that.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      I have. Your reply is related to what I said earlier.

                    • Kara Connor

                      You doubtless fail to see the irony in your statement that “It’s unconstitutional to subject children to false impressions leading them to major psychological harm” as you attempt to force your religion on children, telling them they’re going to hell for eternity. Think about that, too.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Force my religion? I have thought about that. What do you call reeling children into the gay lifestyle only to have them subject to a high suicide rate? What do you call publicly professing you won’t impose SSM on schools or religious institutions only to do the opposite? What do you call exposing children all sorts of illicit sexual practices? And what do you call ultimatums to anyone who does bot want to where your colors, or participate in your parades You have doubtless failure to see your own self-gratification and selfishness. My religion os not being forceful. It’s expressing the truth and the facts. Think about that too.

                    • Kara Connor

                      Neither your nor any other religion have any basis in truth or fact.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Like your community does. Hardy har har. And you wonder why children have no respect for their elders these days. Keep denying the facts.

                    • Kara Connor

                      When you post something factual there’ll be no need to deny it.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      I have posted nothing but factual. You keep denying it.

                    • Lutesuite

                      My research skills far outweigh yours. I’m a writer with the bulk of it being research. Professionals claim they can source and yet they drown themselves in their own academics just like university students these days who think they are better than everyone else because they go to university. I’ll keep my bible, thank-you because I don’t abandon the truth.

                      Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Stop it, man. You’re killing me!

                      But you’re a writer, too. That’s news to me. Could you point us to some of your publications?

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Why? So you can plagiarize them and claim them to be viable sources for your sake? Not a chance.

                    • Lutesuite

                      Why? So you can plagiarize them and claim them to be viable sources for your sake? Not a chance.

                      Oh, dear. It looks like CarlsPatrick has been caught out in another lie. Hes no more a writer than I am the Queen of Sheba.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Look who’s talking.

                    • Lutesuite

                      American politics did play a big part of it, but then again, it was also
                      due to greed and lack of Christianity as it is now explaining why
                      America is falling apart just like ancient Rome did.

                      Yeah. George W. Bush lacked Christianity. Pull the other one.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      He was a fake, and no different than you being fake.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      No Kara, YOUR irrational beliefs. After all, you are the one in denial of nature and reality. You are the one who confirmed that homosexuality is an abnormality. And yet here you are arguing for it.

                    • Kara Connor

                      Quote me where I have said being LGBT is abnormal.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      See, you obviously can’t follow tangents.
                      Me: We are either male or female.
                      You: ( gave examples of abnormalities.)
                      Me: Yes, but they are abnormalities.
                      You: You never questioned that they are abnormalities but instead said that I was proved wrong because obviously there are exception.
                      Me: So therefore you agree that they are abnormalities.

                    • Kara Connor

                      So you’ve just confirmed that you were attempting to put words in my mouth, and that I never said what you claimed.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Not putting words in your mouth. Following it its rightful conclusion. When I said it is an abnormality you did not object. You were always on the ready to object but you did not on this one. And you know why, because you can’t.

                      Even now instead of objecting all you can say is that I am putting words into your mouth. LOL.

                    • Kara Connor

                      I have made it very clear that I did not post those words. Continually lying about what your opponents actually said simply shows how weak your argument is. You’ve just committed a straw man fallacy.

                    • Lutesuite

                      MarcAlcan’s been hanging around with CarlsPatrick too long, it seems. Now he’s pulling the same tactic of fabricating quotes.

                      In any event, the whole issue of whether homosexuality is an “abnormality” is another smokescreen. People with “abnormalities” are not forbidden to marry.

                    • Kara Connor

                      Or at least only straight abnormal people, he thinks.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Said the frog who is sitting in water that is minutely getting hotter.

                    • Kara Connor

                      You really have nothing. I love having people of your ilk as the opposition to equal rights. You just attempt to insult me in place of actually having a rational counterargument, and can’t even do a decent job at that. Marriage is a fundamental right, and court after court says that nans on marriage equality are unconstitutional. Because they are.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      I love having people of your ilk as the opposition to equal rights

                      Oh come on, enough of that sob story and lie. You were never denied any right so stop making things up. Okay so maybe you like fairy tales.

                      You just attempt to insult me in place of actually having a rational counterargument

                      Ha, ha. So you didn’t get the thing about the frog? Here’s another assignment. Google that one and voila you will realize how that is not an insult but a very valid reply to your previous post.

                      Marriage is a fundamental right

                      Which you have never ever been denied. Ever. From the time you were of age, you were allowed to marry the opposite sex just like every one else. So stop this delusion.

                    • Kara Connor

                      Well if you love being beaten time and time again in court, that’s your prerogative.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Well if you love being beaten time and time again in court, that’s your prerogative.

                      Ha, ha, sad Kara.

                      You’ve got no reply to my point have you? Because you know I am right, you have never, ever been denied any right that is available to the homosexual. You have never ever been denied the right to marry.

                      You know that. In fact you know that so well that is why all you can write is that.

                      You are total fraud. A fake.

                    • Kara Connor

                      It’s unfortunate that you don’t understand the Constitution. Comparing the US to theocracies kind of makes my point. If you allow theocracies, religion inevitably leads to inhumanity and atrocities.

                    • Lutesuite

                      Well, it’s tough luck if you’re denied marriage equality, isn’t it.

                      She won’t be for long. That is, assuming she doesn’t already have it. If she’s American, the odds are 70% she does.

                      http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/percent-of-population-living-in-states-with-marriage-equality

                    • Lutesuite

                      Your problem is, your community has too many rights, but you always want extra.

                      Exactly what extra rights is her community receiving?

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Let me think: freedom of speech against anyone they dislike, lobbying, boycotting, legal and judicial support, promotion of pornography to children, including child pornography, and ultimately control of the world and corporations.
                      I’ll humor you this time on this post without wasting my time answering your other pathetic posts. You must be sitting on your chair in front of your computer screen 24/7. That’s very unhealthy for your digestive system. You’ll probably gaining weight and constipating just to send a volley of useless responses.

                    • GG

                      Fake marriage as just one example.

                    • Lutesuite

                      Fake marriage as just one example.

                      Same sex marriage is real. So, sorry, wrong.

                    • Dillon Francis

                      no it is a mental construct. remember, you leftists like to think everything is a construct 🙂

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Only to the delusional.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      From now on, when I rely to another’s post, I will expect an answer from that person I replied to. I won’t answer to you.

                    • Lutesuite

                      From now on, when I rely to another’s post, I will expect an answer from that person I replied to. I won’t answer to you.

                      You never answer to anyone. Least of all to your god who you believe demands that you not bear false witness.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Don’t recite to me about my faith. You’re the one who lacks it, especially with all the lies you follow.

                    • Lutesuite

                      What lies, CarlsPatrick? That I’m a Muslim apologist? That I admitted to changing my name? Oh, no, sorry. My mistake. Those are your lies.

                      And you keep repeating them. What is your problem? Are you really so completely unaware of the difference between what you think is true and what constitutes reality? Or do you really not care whether you tell the truth, and figure God will let you get away with it if you just confess it to your priest afterwards?

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      Quit talking to yourself. So when you say these are my lies, you’re referring to your lies.

                    • CarlsPatrick

                      I’m not bearing false witness. I’m just defending my faith from the likes of liars like you.

                    • GG

                      Not only that but there is unjust and just discrimination. Just discrimination is often a must in order to maintain community justice.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      We are already being front-stabbed, both by the repeated attempts to deny us marriage equality, and the plethora of laws intended to enable businesses and public accommodations to turn away me, my wife and children if they claim they do it on religious grounds

                      Answer me this:
                      1) If you married the opposite sex would you have been denied the right to marry? If you answer no, then your claim about denial of marriage equality is pure hogwash.
                      2) What laws are in place to deny you public housing?

                    • Kara Connor

                      Question 1) has been considered by several courts, including SCOTUS, and it is about the right to marry the unrelated, consenting adult of your choice. If you are suggesting that gay men should marry straight women, that is patently ridiculous. Your claiming that the right to marry someone of the opposite sex makes same sex marriage moot for equality has been rejected by every Federal or Supreme Court ruling which considered it, and by anyone thinking I through.
                      2) You don’t understand what “public accommodation” means, or are being deliberately obtuse.
                      And yes I do have a wife, and my marriage is recognized in the UK and the US. A religious ceremony only, by contrast, without the necessary civil law elements, means nothing legally.

                    • GG

                      Nazis consume themselves.

                  • Dillon Francis

                    man made law can change in a heart beat. just because today there is a law the claims kids can’t consent does not mean that in the future a law won’t change that.

                    • Kara Connor

                      And just because today there isn’t Sharia Law doesn’t mean that if we open the door ro letting Christianity dictate civil law, there soon won’t be Sharia. See what I did there? A slippery slope fallacy, like yours.

                    • GG

                      Yes, we see more lunacy. Christianity has informed the civil law for centuries and is quite compatible with it. That is undeniable. Sharia law has never been compatible with western civil law. That is as much a novelty has two men thinking they are “married”.

                      The slippery slope already happened. We are now at the bottom.

                    • Dillon Francis

                      I see that you didn’t address my point. Because that would contradict the sickness you wish to promote as love.

                    • Kara Connor

                      Do you understand what a fallacy is? You don’t have a point.

                    • Dillon Francis

                      You must be an imbecile if you didn’t understand my point. And trying to act as if you are a master debater isn’t working.

                    • Kara Connor

                      That’s ad hominem. Another logical fallacy.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      LOL. And that confirms my point that you are clueless as to logical fallacies. Educate yourself and google ad hominem and try to understand it.

                    • Kara Connor

                      Uh huh.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Glad you agree. You’ve obviously finally googled ad hominem and it has now sunk in.

                    • Kara Connor

                      So tell me which of my three points are wrong:
                      1) Marriage requires two consenting,

                      2) unrelated adults.

                      3) Children, animals and inanimate objects are incapable of consent.

                      Also explain why your attempt to claim that marriage equality will somehow lead to minors being able to consent is not an example of a slippery slope fallacy.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      So tell me which of my three points are wrong:

                      Wrong? Where it is a half truth. It’s not so much what you state but what you omitted. Marriage is between two consenting unrelated adults of the opposite sex. Two of the same sex cannot contract marriage no matter how much you try.
                      As for your point 3: If you can make change the definition of marriage by hacking “between an man and woman” out, why should consent be left? Why should those who want to get rid of consent not be allowed to hack the definition as you do?
                      Further more, why should the paedophiles be exempted from hacking the definition if your ilk are allowed to do it. That is discrimination again the paedophile and zoophile.
                      So the paedophile and zoophile can go to court and cite the same grounds you used.

                      Only the stupid is unable to understand that.

                      I do hope you will address my bolded points. You have been skirting that.

                    • Kara Connor

                      You haven’t managed to rebut my first two points at all. Simply asserting your viewpoint is not a rebuttal.
                      On point 3 you commit the camel’s nose fallacy, so your rebuttal, such as it is, is invalid. One could just as easily claim that women should not have been given the vote because all the other criteria for voting might then change and children, animals or steam locomotives would then be able to vote. If you wish to campaign for the other things you mention, have at it.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      You don’t even have any idea what a fallacy is. Because if you do, you won’t be making them. Perhaps you thought that if you used the word it would make you look intelligent.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      My, you really have abandoned reason. Are you really that stupid that Sharia and Christianity go together? Or you think all religions are the same?

                    • Kara Connor

                      Point well missed.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Obviously by you.

                  • Billy

                    Some animals can consent. Mares occasionally “wink” at their owners, and many zoophiles describe the positive reactions their animal parterns have during sex. In the case of mares, if they didn’t “want it” they could simply walk away or even kick (which also happens sometimes). I find it disturbing that you proclaim from the rooftops that people can’t choose their sexuality in regards to homosexuals, but then suddenly this argument becomes completely irrelevant when you must therefore conclude that zoophiles can’t choose their sexuality (which they obviously can’t, but the point is that an inherent attraction doesn’t justify the act).

                    • Kara Connor

                      Animals cannot legally consent. You fantasies about bestiality and being winked at are best kept to yourself.

              • GG

                Apparently gays cannot reason well. Consent is a mere legal construct as plastic as marriage. The unjust State may redefine reality at will. Consent has changed in the past and will change now.

                BTW, animals can be owned without consent, marrying them is no big deal at all. Children can be killed in their mother’s body so marrying one is no big deal. Stop with the propaganda.

                • Atilla The Possum

                  Homosexuals have neither matured nor developed minds that can reason well. They behave like children – hence their dangerous attitudes of playground bullying, intimidation, emotional blackmail, name calling and spitting the dummy when they don’t get their own way or someone calls them names!

                  • chillinout.

                    Never to fear, your generation will die off soon enough 🙂 and your children and certainly your grandchildren will learn to repent from your sinful beliefs, or face a life of joblessness and social ostracization. I mean that’s the way it is for millenials already 😉

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Never to fear, your generation will die off soon enough 🙂

                      That is soooooo totally hilarious.
                      If the likes of you were the only ones in the planet, there would be no generation to speak of. How absolutely totally dumb.

                    • GG

                      Ah, yes spoken like a facile thinker. It is always the next generation. Just like Nazi Germany. We understand all too well.

                  • GG

                    It is part of the syndrome. It is all about attention seeking, persecution complexes, and stunted emotional growth.

                • Lutesuite

                  Apparently gays cannot reason well. Consent is a mere legal construct as plastic as marriage. The unjust State may redefine reality at will.

                  Yes. That is why the means exist, in a democracy, to change unjust laws.

                  The law once stated that couples of mixed race could not marry. That was unjust, and was abolished. And the law also once stated only couples of opposite sex could marry. That is also unjust and is being abolished.

                  • GG

                    What does skin color have to do with sodomy?

                    • Lutesuite

                      What does skin color have to do with sodomy?

                      Nothing. Sorry, is that meant to be a response to my post?

                      If laws prevent discrimination on the basis of race as as well as religion, that does not mean race and religion are the same thing, does it?

              • MarcAlcan

                This seems difficult for you to understand, but marriage requires two consenting, unrelated adults

                Precisely!!!!
                There is no requirement for love (people have married for expediency).
                And oh, you forgot that the other requirement was “of the opposite sex”. Marriage is between consenting man and woman. It was never about love.

                Ergo, marriage has more requirements than consent.

                Furthermore, the age of consent is movable and changes from country to country.

                The age of consent can be as low as 12 depending on which country you are in. It is an arbitrary number designated by man.

                • Kara Connor

                  There is no requirement for the two people to be of the opposite sex in 37 US states, DC, England Scotland, Wales, Denmark, France and many other countries. And I never claimed consent was the only requirement. I pointed out that it is a necessary requirement which renders the claim that marriage will extend to children, animals or inanimate objects, moot.

                  • MarcAlcan

                    Now you are fibbing.
                    There was such a requirement till you went through that with your hack saw.
                    So, why should somebody else not go through the requirements with their own hack saws? You did it? Equality right? So everyone should be allowed to go through it the same way you did.

                • chillinout.

                  “Marriage is unchangable and designed precisely by ‘god”

                  “the age of consent is arbitrary and up to man”

                  In other words, child rape and pedophilia are okay as long as it’s with a girl and benefits a heterosexual male. Typical pervert

                  • MarcAlcan

                    Well I think it is you who are a pervert. That is the nature of homosexual activity after all – a perversion, a depravity.
                    And my point regarding age of consent is precisely that. The age of consent is something that the law sets. In other countries it is 12. So if consent is the one that guides morality, then as far as you are concerned a child of 12 can marry.
                    Sigh, it seems you are comprehension challenged because you did not see the point.
                    And you know what – the ones who are pushing for the lowering of the age of consent are the homosexuals.

                    • Lutesuite

                      And my point regarding age of consent is precisely that. The age of
                      consent is something that the law sets. In other countries it is 12. So
                      if consent is the one that guides morality, then as far as you are
                      concerned a child of 12 can marry.

                      So just what is your point? That law can change? Well, gee, thanks for the insight, Capt. Obvious.

                      And, sure, it’s theoretically possible the age of consent could be legally lowered to 12. And it’s also theoretically possible that traffic laws will be changed so that people may drive on whichever side of the road they wish. But there are pretty persuasive arguments to be made against both of those, don’t you think?

                      And neither of them are any more likely to be enacted once gay marriage is legalized, There simply is no logical connection from one to the other.

                      Laws change and are based on arguments made within the courts and the legislature, in terms of what is in the best interest of the security, safety, well-being and fairness of society as a whole. Your side has had every opportunity to make your arguments in favour of the old marriage laws, on these bases. And you have failed, repeatedly, invariably, spectacularly and often hilariously.

                      That’s because your arguments have no basis other than the hatred of homosexual people. Your attempts to cover this up with half-baked philosophical argument have been easily seen thru.

                      You guys have lost. Deal with it.

                    • GG

                      What a strange mind you have. You think that changing traffic laws or consent laws is in some way highly unlikely, yet society is now upside down. Two men can pretend to be a man and woman and raise children. We have passed absurdity. The examples you give are nothing compared to what we have now. Too funny.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Is it far fetched? Edgar Allan Poe married his 13 year old first cousin.

                      So no, it is not only theoretically possible, it has already happened. As I have said before the is the legal age in other countries.

                      So it must be okay for you that girls in other countries can be married off at 12 because after all- you are for the law.

                      That’s because your arguments have no basis other than the hatred of homosexual people.

                      Oh poor Lute, can’t make a reasoned argument so resorts to this.
                      It doesn’t work. I know your tactic. Call those who oppose you as homophobes and hate mongers.
                      Naaah, you are just trying to bully us to silence. That is what you hope for but it aint working because we are on to your bullying tactics.

                      And since you are all for the rule of law, you must be rejoicing at the fact that China successfully enforce their one child policy by forcibly killing the children of mothers and that you must be jumping hip hip hooray at the beheadings in Saurdi Arabia. It’s their law after all.

                      You guys have lost. Deal with it.

                      No Lute. You guys lost it a long time ago. It is evidenced by all your arguments. And the sad fact is you aint gonna recover it.
                      .

                    • Lutesuite

                      So it must be okay for you that girls in other countries can be married off at 12 because after all- you are for the law.

                      Straw man. If I felt anything condoned by law was right, why would I be advocating for change to laws banning SSM?

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Straw man? You obviously do not understand the term.
                      It is totally logical. If you’re argument is that law makes right then the law makes right. Simple really if you the capacity to understand.

                    • Lutesuite

                      Straw man? You obviously do not understand the term.
                      It is totally logical. If you’re argument is that law makes right then the law makes right.

                      That is not my argument. Which is why your statement is a straw man.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      That is not my argument. Which is why your statement is a straw man.

                      Which just proves that you really have no idea what straw man fallacy is.

                  • GG

                    Huh? The normal people reject that. It is the perverts who want license to act perversely.

              • David

                Hello Kara,
                Question for you, why would a gay couple need to be unrelated?

                Thanks.

                • Kara Connor

                  They generally wouldn’t, but if the law says that straight couples must be, then equal protection would presumably require the same for same sex couples. Also, if a familial relationship already exists then inheritance and other protections already exist. Civil marriage establishes a familial relationship amongst other things.

              • Guest

                From your posts, you seem to be well-versed in all things law. I have a legal question related to your comment above. Can or cannot children divorce their parents? If they can, does that show consent? Thank you for clearing this up.

                • Kara Connor

                  Children cannot divorce their parents. Some states have a mechanism called emancipation, which is administered by the courts after meeting strict criteria, because minors can’t legally consent.

              • guest

                This seems difficult for you to understand, but marriage requires two consenting, unrelated adults of the opposite sex. Dropping the last clause has no more historical precedent than dropping the first, while the middle three were not always present.

                • Kara Connor

                  Except you are wrong about it requiring two opposite sex people. I am married to my wife, and that is recognized in two countries, England and America, in my home state, Washington, and by the Federal government. These are facts.

          • MarcAlcan

            Not blatant assertions. Common sense. Which seems to be profoundly absent in your arguments.

            • Kara Connor

              You seem intent on collecting the complete set of logical fallacies. You have just tried the “common sense” fallacy http://corkskeptics.org/2011/05/03/the-common-sense-fallacy/ having yet again failed to produce a single jurisdiction where your dire predictions have become enshrined in law.

              • “You seem intent on collecting the complete set of logical fallacies.”

                “Cereal box logic”?

              • MarcAlcan

                It is only a fallacy if it is indeed not common sense.
                As for dire predictions not having happened yet, it is too early. And yet we are already seeing the move down the slippery slope.
                We have people arguing for polygamy on the basis of the arguments for gay marriage.
                And guess what, they are totally correct and logical. And that is only on the base of your argument.
                But what about other interests who argue that if you are allowed to modify marriage, then why can’t they be allowed to modify the terms?
                Like I said before, if you can hack away parts of the definition of marriage, why should it only be your ilk who should be allowed to do so?
                You keep yapping on about consent. But why should that be there? And if you say that that is what makes it a contract, then why can’t we re-define contract?

                • Kara Connor

                  You’re a troll. Despite being given multiple opportunities to produce just one example of SSM leading to being able to marry animals or objects, or polygamy, you have failed. Goodnight.

                  • MarcAlcan

                    Dumb. You are at a point zero and you want me to show you point 20? We are not there yet.

                    How long before we realized that slavery is bad? How long before we outlawed it?

                    • Lutesuite

                      How long before we realized that slavery is bad? How long before we outlawed it?

                      And, sorry, just how does that pertain to the issue of marriage equality? How long ago did we realize that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was unacceptable? And how long has it taken to realize that this includes denial of the right to marriage?

                    • MarcAlcan

                      And, sorry, just how does that pertain to the issue of marriage equality?

                      Did you not ask me to provide proof of something that has just happened?
                      To explain: some effects take a while to manifest. But if it is on a down hil trend, then expect it to roll down to the bottom.

                      And how long has it taken to realize that this includes denial of the right to marriage

                      But this is pure lie. You have never been denied the right. Ask the gays who were married to the opposite sex. They were married. So enough of this stupid argument. One would think that you would have grasped that by now but it seems not.

                    • Lutesuite

                      But this is pure lie. You have never been denied the right. Ask the gays
                      who were married to the opposite sex. They were married. So enough of
                      this stupid argument. One would think that you would have grasped that
                      by now but it seems not.

                      Sure. And, by the same token, all Islamic countries have freedom of religious practice. Everyone has the equal right to practice Islam.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      And, by the same token, all Islamic countries have freedom of religious practice

                      Too dumb.
                      So you are telling me that those who are same sex attracted would have been denied the right to marry had they chosen to marry the opposite sex.
                      You absolutely have no idea what a fat lie that would be don’t you.
                      And hey, this is not just an argument. This is for real. No SSA who wants to marry the opposite sex will ever be denied the right to marry except in the degrees of consanguinity and where the perso underaged.
                      You lose Lute. You lose in argument, reason and logic. That is why you all you can do is appeal to the law. Which is to be expected because you believe a lie and you live a lie.

                    • Lutesuite

                      Too dumb.
                      So you are telling me that those who are same sex attracted
                      would have been denied the right to marry had they chosen to marry the
                      opposite sex.

                      No.

                      Are you saying a Christian who lived in an Islamic theocracy that banned all other religions would not have the same right as all other citizens to practice Islam?

                    • MarcAlcan

                      No.

                      Finally! Boy that was like pulling teeth.

                      Are you saying a Christian who lived in an Islamic theocracy that banned all other religions would not have the same right as all other citizens to practice Islam?

                      What sort of stupid argument is that? How is that even related?
                      The fuzziness of your thinking is legend.
                      Firstly, the homosexuals are not denied the practice of their homosexuality. They’ve been engaging in their depraved behaviour and they’ve been allowed to do that.Get that?
                      For your analogy to be even remotely relevant, the situation will have to be Christians demanding that Islam change its rules to incorporate Christian beliefs. Get that?
                      Let’s put this side by side so you will at least understand it.
                      Agent of change: Homosexuals
                      Agent of change: Christians
                      Item to be changed: Marriage
                      Item to be changed: Islamic faith to conform to Christian faith.
                      Do you not think that it is stupid to for Christians to force Muslims to change their faith so that they can practice their own Christianized version of Islam?

                    • Lutesuite

                      Finally! Boy that was like pulling teeth.

                      All you had to do was ask.

                      What sort of stupid argument is that? How is that even related?

                      Yes, it is an exceedingly stupid argument. That’s because it is modelled on your argument. This called a “reductio ad absurdum.” If you’re not familar with the concept, look it up.

                      Firstly, the homosexuals are not denied the practice of their homosexuality.

                      We are not talking about that. We’re talking about whether they are allowed to marry an opposite sex partner. There are still a few places in the US where they are not allowed to do that.

                      For your analogy to be even remotely relevant, the situation will have to be Christians demanding that Islam change its rules to incorporate Christian beliefs.

                      It seems I did not explain my argument clearly enough for you to understand. The scenario I am suggesting is one in which the practice of any religion other than Islam is forbidden by law. So that doe not at all require the situation that you use above. All that would be required for Christians to be truly allowed their religious freedom would be to change the law so that the practice of any religion, not only Islam, is permitted. That, however, would not require changing the practice of Islam in any way. Get it now?

                      Let’s put this side by side so you will at least understand it.

                      Agent of change: Homosexuals

                      Agent of change: Christians

                      Good so far.

                      Item to be changed: Marriage

                      Item to be changed: Islamic faith to conform to Christian faith.

                      Bzzzzt! Wrong. The correct analogy:

                      Item to be changed: Law restricting marriage only to partners of opposite sex.

                      Item to be changed: Law restricting the practice of any religion other than Islam.

                      Do you not think that it is stupid to for Christians to force Muslims to change their faith so that the Christians can practice their own Christianized version of Islam?

                      Very stupid. That’s why I am not suggesting this. Why you think I am suggesting this, I cannot imagine. I am suggesting that Christians be allowed to practice Christianity and Muslims be allowed to practice Islam. Like already happens in the US and other secular nations. This is not some fantasy scenario I am creating.

                      Furthermore, for your analogy to be relevant, you will have to be forced to get married to the opposite sex which you clearly are not.

                      LOL! Seriously, where did you learn to read? In my analogy, Christians are not being forced to practice Islam. They can practice Islam, or they can practice no religion at all.

                      Just as, before the passage of marriage equality laws, homosexuals could marry a person of the opposite sex, or they could marry no one at all.

                      Since you are claiming the latter is not discriminatory, it should logically follow that neither is the former. But you don’t think that, right? You think it would be discriminatory to forbid the practice of Christianity even if Christians were not forced to practice Islam. And you are correct. But, for some reason, you don’t apply the same reasoning to laws banning SSM. How odd.

                      Furthermore, for your analogy to be relevant, you will have to be forced to get married to the opposite sex which you clearly are not.

                      And neither are Christians forced to practice Islam in my scenario.

                      As for living in an Islamic theocracy- that is an item that has absolutely no relevance in the comparison at all because there is nothing even remotely similar involved in the gay marriage issue.

                      No one is forcing you to get married. But you on the other hand are forcing people to change the definition of marriage. That is gay authoritarianism. Same as Islamic totalitarianism.

                      So if Christians were to convince Islamic government to change the laws to allow them full practice of their religion, would that also be “totalitarianism”? I guess it would be by your “reasoning.” But your reasoning leaves a lot to be desired.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Sure. And, by the same token, all Islamic countries have freedom of religious practice. Everyone has the equal right to practice Islam.

                      As I have explained in a previous post, that is a totally dumb analogy.
                      For that to be even remotely relevant, the Christians and other religions will have pressured the Muslims to alter their religion in accordance with Christianity so that Christians can participate in the Muslim religion.
                      Try again.

                    • Lutesuite

                      For that to be even remotely relevant, the Christians and other
                      religions will have pressured the Muslims to alter their religion in
                      accordance with Christianity so that Christians can participate in the
                      Muslim religion.

                      Nope. Christians would have the “freedom” to practice Islam exactly as it is, or they can practice no religion. Muslims would not have to change their religion at all.

                      Just as, in your scenario, homosexuals have the “freedom” to marry someone of the opposite sex, or not get married at all. People who already plan on marrying someone of the opposite would not have to change their marriages at all.

                      Whereas, in countries like America where Christians are allowed to practice their religion, Muslims are also able to practice their religion without altering it in accordance with Christianity. And now that SSM marriage is alllowed in most of the US, people are still able to engage in opposite sex marriage without having to alter their practice at all.

                      Try again.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Just as, in your scenario, homosexuals have the “freedom” to marry someone of the opposite sex,

                      Well no. Because homosexuals are not stopped from practicing homosexuality. But what they are proposing is to change something.

                      So for it to be relevant, the Christians will have to be proposing to change Islam according to Christian belief just as you are proposing to change marriage.

                      Just as, in your scenario, homosexuals have the “freedom” to marry someone of the opposite sex, or not get married at all.

                      Again wrong analogy because the issue is what is it that we are asking to be allowed to do.
                      You are asking to be allowed to marry. And I said you have not been denied that. You want to marry. You can marry. If you want marriage these are the rules.

                      But what you are proposing is to change the rules of marriage according to what suits you and if it is not changed to what suits you then you consider it a denial.

                      So for your Christians analogy to work: Muslims say you can be a Muslim and worship as a Muslim. But the Christian says no, I want you to change the Islamic faith to conform to my Christian belief so that I can worship according to the way I choose – a Christian-Muslim hybrid. But the Muslim says, no if you want to be a Muslim you leave Islam as it is. I am not denying you the right to be a Muslim because you can worship as a Muslim anytime you like. You just can’t change Islam to suit you whims.

                      So yet again, your analogy is dumb.
                      Yes, you may try again.

                    • Lutesuite

                      So for your Christians analogy to work: Muslims say you can be a Muslim and worship as a Muslim. But the Christian says no, I want you to change the Islamic faith to conform to my Christian belief so that I can worship according to the way I choose – a Christian-Muslim hybrid.

                      No. Just no.

                      I’ve addressed the above points in the reply I’ve written to your earlier post:

                      http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/progress-worlds-first-three-way-gay-marriage#comment-1921718050

                      After you’ve finished wiping the egg off your face, you can try again, if you still don’t realize you’re wrong.

                    • ELSEVAR

                      “How long before we realized that slavery is bad? How long before we outlawed it?”

                      Those are interesting questions, Marc. Your bible STILL approves of slavery and even goes so far as to prescribe how it is to be done. Yes, both old testament and new. Nowhere is there ANY condemnation of slavery, not from the hypothetical Jesus, and not from Saul/Paul. Why has it never been edited/revised to correct that grave error?

                      The same thing is true of Jehovian slaughter and genocide. Condemnations of Jehovah’s decision-making are curiously absent in your foundational document. Why is that?

                      And why are you using preachments based on biblical snippets to form your own decision-making?

                      It looks suspiciously like you are opposed to things you don’t like and that you subsequently, retroactively try to come up with reasons to support your personal animus. From what I have heard and read, that is not very Christian (as in follower of Jesus) of you. It is very Jehovian, though. Perhaps you are worshipping the wrong god.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Your bible STILL approves of slavery

                      Educate yourself on Biblical exegesis. At this point your argument is pitiful.
                      When you’ve done that, we can talk.

                    • ELSEVAR

                      Marc, if you don’t dispute that there is nothing in the bible which condemns slavery, and you are an expert in exegesis, then I can take it as proven that there is nothing in the bible which condemns slavery.

                      I guess you already know that a response like this …

                      “Educate yourself on Biblical exegesis. At this point your argument is pitiful.”

                      … is more an admission of failure than a challenge. You can have your beliefs and preferences, but your bible is a pretty scrambled document to be basing them on. Good luck with that.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Marc, if you don’t dispute that there is nothing in the bible which condemns slavery, and you are an expert in exegesis, then I can take it as proven that there is nothing in the bible which condemns slavery.

                      I won’t do your homework for you.
                      But here’s a hint – jubilee.
                      And another hint – period context.
                      And one more hint – God’s patience.
                      And further hint – understanding of slavery.
                      Now that should set you off on an adventure of learning.

                    • ELSEVAR

                      “I won’t do your homework for you.”

                      You apparently can’t do even your own homework, Marc. Thanks for making that clear, and for acknowledging that you are in a corner on this slavery in the bible thing.

                      It is a certainty that most Christians have evolved enough to have set aside slavery, and all those other embarrassing bible contradictions, but those evolved Christians don’t rely on the bible to defend prejudice, bias, and hatred. How about you? A Jesus follower, or a Jehovan?

                    • MarcAlcan

                      You apparently can’t do even your own homework, Marc

                      I don’t have to do my homework. I know. that is why I gave you tips. But even with that you still can’t do your homework.

                      It is a certainty that most Christians have evolved enough to have set aside slavery

                      Well duh, that is the whole point of Christianity.
                      But of course you don’t know anything about that.

                    • ELSEVAR

                      Well done, Marc. You have said that, IN SPITE OF THE BIBLE, Christianity now has evolved into a distaste for slavery. You are confirming that Christianity’s foundational document was proved wrong, as were most or all of the immoral acts of Jehovah in the Old Testament, and much of the thrust of Saul/Paul’s writings in the New.

                      Since you now tell us that Old Testament prohibitions are highly questionable and inappropriate for modern civilized humans, then you are now also ready to agree that the biblical bias and discrimination against minority groups, including LGTB people, should also end.

                      Thanks for helping out with that.

                  • GG

                    Those examples are simply variations of what we now have. Two men can never be married. The State can “legalize” square circles but they will never exist. It is a legal fiction.

                    The other permutations are not that worse than two men pretending to be married.

                • Lutesuite

                  As for dire predictions not having happened yet, it is too early. And
                  yet we are already seeing the move down the slippery slope.
                  We have people arguing for polygamy on the basis of the arguments for gay marriage.

                  Actually, those arguments are just as commonly based on the principle of religious freedom. So if you insist on using a slippery slope argument, the slope starts there.

              • GG

                We already have serious consequences. Perversion is protected by the law. The law is a teacher. Teach perversion and you get more perverts.

      • MarcAlcan

        Not a single one of your “slipper slope” scenarios has happened in any jurisdiction with marriage equality.

        It’s too early.
        People have failed to put two and two together yet. But this threesome has done it. Soon others will see that if it gay marriage is okay then so is polygamy and incest, bestiality etc.
        For it you can change one of the criteria of marriage, why can’t every one else.
        You mentioned consent. Well if you can take man and woman out of the equation, why should consent be left ? Why should adult be left? Why should human beings be left?

        The whole argument of the gay marriage mob is just too dumb but they are too dumb to see that it is dumb.

        • Kara Connor

          Arguments about what might happen were used to oppose many things that today it is self-evident it should be. Women’s suffrage, abolishing slavery to name a few. There is no legitimate interest in withholding civil marriage from same sex couples, bu very real and immediate, negative effects on families like mine, from denying legal equality.

          • chillinout.

            You’re arguing with idiots. Try talking to a wall, the wall is smarter than these heterofascists

            • MarcAlcan

              Were you looking in the mirror when you typed that?
              You and Kara have so far not presented any sane arguments. Only stupid ones.

              • GG

                That is the way sodomy worship works. It makes people unable to reason well.

            • GG

              Look in the mirror.

          • MarcAlcan

            Total hogwash.
            There was nothing frightful about allowing women the right to vote.
            Abolishing slavery is only right because after all we are for equal rights.
            But the homosexual has always (note that: ALWAYS) had the right of the homosexual.
            They were never denied the right to marry. If they chose to rightfully marry the opposite sex, they could have gotten married. In fact, many did. It had nothing to do with once preference for sexual activity.

            • Kara Connor

              That argument was rejected by SCOTUS when it struck down DOMA. You fail again.

              • MarcAlcan

                So what? All that means is a few men and women in power decided so.

                Law has got nothing to do with what is right but who has the power to impose it. That is all it is.

                In Saudi Arabia, it is lawful to stone homosexuals to death or throw them from a height. So if you are for the rule of law, you must be happy about that one too.

                • Kara Connor

                  Unlike you I don’t want to live in a theocracy, so no society like that works for me. SCOTUS is, I would suggest, rather more adept at interpreting the Constitution than ate you. They, along with every Federal court which has considered the argument, have ruled that the 14th Amendment provides equal protection for same sex couples.

                  • MarcAlcan

                    Unlike you I don’t want to live in a theocracy,

                    Of course you don’t. How else can you push forth your perversions?

                    SCOTUS is, I would suggest, rather more adept at interpreting the Constitution than ate you.

                    Are they? Do you not realize that it all depends on how the SCOTUS is constituted? SCOTUS is not impartial. They have bias. The most we can hope for is that they will decide with wisdom but there is no guarantee that they will.

                    If law is all that matters, then it was legal in America to have slaves, it was legal in America for women not to vote. So legal means zilch. It all depends on what is the flavour of the month in the fickle mind of the legislator.

  • realist

    Wait till one of these clowns decides to cut their there thing off and become a women–then their “marriage” will really be on the rocks.

    • .
      Quite an imagination there, @Salvy00:disqus — socio-psycho-pharmaco-therapy on your schedule, soon?
      .

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.++

  • Elaine Steffek

    It can only end with something worse than Sodom.
    For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

  • bonaventure

    While it took about 20 years — from the time hypocritical politicians in the U.S. signed DOMA into law — to destroy marriage, it will take twice (or thrice) as fast to legalize polyamorous relationships as “marriage,” and then less and less time for every additional change.

    • JohnE_o

      Read the linked article – the polyamorous ceremony was NOT recognized under Thai Civil Law.

      • bonaventure

        Homosexual “marriage” is not recognized in MOST jurisdictions around the world, and yet it does not change the fact that homosexuals worldwide are (1) pretending to marry and (2) trying to change legislation.

        In regards to pretending being married and challenging the laws in their country, those three homosexual men are not doing anything different from what homosexual activists are doing & have been doing in America and the western world for over a decade now.

        • .
          You are the pretender, @bonaventure:disqus.

          All adults in the US have recognized equal inborn unalienable rights including the right to marry and build a family.

          That is real and legal.

          Multiple partner marriages are an ancient heterosexual invention and practice — read your own precious Judeo-Christian Bible.
          .

          • ForChristAlone

            EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
            spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
            Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
            terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
            imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
            mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
            sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
            discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
            vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
            in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
            Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
            Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.+

          • GG

            There is no right to vice. None.

      • GG

        So what?

        • JohnE_o

          So you guys are reacting to something that didn’t really happen as if it really did.

          • GG

            It did happen. It is as authentic as any “gay” marriage.

            • JohnE_o

              You are mistaken. That ceremony will convey no additional rights under civil law.

              A same sex marriage between two men would convey additional rights under civil law where such marriages are recognized.

              • GG

                No, all you mean is that some State affirms unjust laws. It is like the State claiming unborn babies have to right to life or blacks are not fully citizens.

                • JohnE_o

                  No, what I mean is that a same sex marriage between two men conveys certain civil rights, such as the right to inheritance, tax status, and so forth that this ceremony will not convey.

                  • GG

                    Yes, that is a legal construct. It is not marriage. Just a bunch of administrative rules.

                    • JohnE_o

                      So, given that Same Sex Marriage is not Sacramental Marriage, but rather a set of administrative rules set up by the State for the convenience of people who wish to register with the State to be bound by those administrative rules, then why all the drama about those folks who wish to do that?

                    • GG

                      Because marriage has a specific definition. Sacramental marriages are not the sole criteria. There are many valid marriages including natural marriages. Once you deform the word you change perception.

                      A man is not a cow. Water is not gasoline. Sodomy is not marriage. It does not matter how screwed up the law is. Words matter greatly.

                    • JohnE_o

                      So is it the case if Same Sex Marriages were instead called Same Sex Civil Unions, then you wouldn’t be nearly as worked up about all this?

                    • GG

                      It is the same act just by another name. It is all evil. It is all unjust and harms children.

    • .
      Are you married, @bonaventure:disqus, is your marriage at risk because of anyone else?
      .

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen…….

  • jacobum

    What a surprise Not! Keep the “words” and redefine their meaning and you can sell or justify anything. “Marriage” has been reduced to the right to ” personal pleasure”. If that’s accepted norm than every perversion i/n/o “marriage” is fair game. While polygamy is a foregone conclusion, don’t be surprised if next up is some guy demanding animal husbandry rights aka the right to marry his favorite sheep or barnyard animal or some other nonsense. After all he could be just working on his personal faith journey so…..”Who are we to judge?”…mmm.. Where have I heard that? It sounds familiar for some reason. Degeneration on steroids? Nah…It’s just the latest in the “expression of affection”

    • .
      Marriage being “reduced”(?!?) to personal pleasure is not the recent invention of gays, @Jacobums:disqus:

      “… Kiss me, make me drunk with your kisses! …”
      “… We will indeed recall your lovemaking more than wine. …” — Bible 1:2, 1:4 by Solomon

      “… Oh look ye at your own loins, ye heterosexuals! …” — Bible of 12:53 by HH *
      _________

      * Hugh Hefner, raised devout Methodist Christian, first published Playboy magazine in December 1953.
      .

      • CarlsPatrick

        That quote is not to be taken literally.

        • .
          Oh?

          Which one?
          .

          • CarlsPatrick

            Figure it out yourself, wise guy.

            • .
              Okay, I’ll presume you can only speak for yourself, @CarlsPatrick:disqus.

              So you are saying that your post, your quote, is not to be taken literally.

              Got it.

              Thanks.
              .

              • ForChristAlone

                EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
                spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
                Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
                terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
                imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
                mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
                sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
                discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
                vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
                in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
                Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
                Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen……

              • CarlsPatrick

                Do you know what the quote means? You don’t.

          • ForChristAlone

            EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
            spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
            Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
            terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
            imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
            mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
            sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
            discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
            vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
            in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
            Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
            Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen…..

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen…

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    I told you so!

    Do let me say that, Eve T.

    [See my post on yesterday’s article . . .]

    There’s been a sort of “merciful” submission going on – even among traditional (conservative) Catholics — that is we give way, even as a gesture of benign neglect , to same-sex coupling (or, in the very least,to some validity to “spiritual friendships” that shy just, barely, shy away from being full-blown sex) that we would be spared the horror of welcoming any more perversion crowding on the welcome mat.

    We were counting on the “Gay but Faithful Catholic” contingent to shut and lock the door once they got in. Their marginal sexual identities (once called perversions) now vessels for the Holy Spirit to overflow with God’s life. Done deed. For BEING gay, for BEING lesbian, we were told, are unique gifts from which flows a specialized gnosis and ways of beholding God.

    Now we are to do thew same to the threesome, foursome, and fivesome folks – of all sorts of combinations and variations. Though Eve & Co. had slammed the door shut against their kin, assured us that the slippery slope was a fear-mongering put out by fundies and trads. Now I see we were fools.

    Gay & Catholic; BDSM & Catholic; Tranzi & Catholic; Poly-Threesome (& more) & Catholic. What’s next? Child-Attracted-Adult/ Adult-Attracted=Child & Child? Maybe if we go out all-hog for the whole litter the media will leave us alone.

    Now tell me, New Homophiles, what are the special graces to be exhibited in a threesome marriage? Would a two guy, one gal, threesome coupling have a complementarity angle, for instance, that a two gal and one guy coupling wouldn’t?But, please, don’t tell us that a Ploy-Threesome Marriage would be imaging that . . .!!

    Several questions remains: Which mainstream Catholic publishing house will put out the first book titled *Poly-Threesome and Catholic”? Which Life Tenn Mass will give the first nod, layout food for a reception in the parish hall? And this – will the Family Synod this coming October resolve the issue one way or the other?

    [From the BANKRUPT Diocese of Stockton, the Mother Lode, wondering where it will end?]

    • .
      Oh, please, tell us more about that “… full blown sex …”. @CadaveraVeroInnumero:disqus — you’ve got my attention!

      (I didn’t read the rest of your post after that phrase in your lead in, by the way — what did you say, do you have a brief synopsis?)
      .

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen..

      • CadaveraVeroInnumero

        How can Ms. Eve T. make a case *against* giving BDSM sex identity adherents being *welcomed* in the Church – with their full basket of gifts, spiritualities and charisms – as she (and others) have demanded for the adherents of homosexuality (male & female).

        “Adherent” is a good descriptor since homosexuality is (as with BDSM) a yielding to a life one does not need to submit to. Yes, one can be Catholic and SUFFER from homosexual temptations (to be fought and , by grace, laid aside), but one cannot be Catholic and insist that God and man and honor this “gift” of homosexuality which they have integrated into every aspect of their lives: homosexuality as a worldview, as a domicile. Homosexuality demands that submission from its adherents. This cannot be: homosexuality is not integral to man’s creaturehood.

        Maybe the phrasing you pointed out was a bit unfortunate (a phrase too common to ordinary speech to be reduced to your assumed meaning). There’s no need to edit it. From where I sit – on my claimed stool at the Black Cat Bar (700 block, Montgomery St, San Francisco) – the wording fits. The parade of Queer Theory denizens pushing in and out the door would tag it apropos – as they do Ms. Eve T.’s little book. There’s a scrawled note in the back room saying, “Thank God for Eve’s book. Finally some smoke is seeping under the door crack of the Church”. (And, before you assume any more lexical nuances, Blessed Pope Paul VI would get *my* meaning!)

        The badness of Eve’s book is not her personal story (where there is much to admire and be thankful for. The book’s smoke-curling damage is the Queer Theory language it is written in – and audaciously assumes is no hindrance since its Q/T voice is mouthed through that (truly) wonderful personal story of hers, as it assumes there’s an easy hermeneutic of Queer Theory’s adaptability to the language of faithfulness to Church teaching.

        Ms. T. needs to shut up (off and down) the Queer Theory voice and rewrite the book. I scribbled as much over that victory posting in the back room. Pray, though, I don’t loose my stool privileges at the Black Cat Bar. Even though their beer stock is nothing to evangelize about, had better on the Russian River.

  • Jacqueleen

    All you lukewarm and silent Christians out there….it is time to stand up and scream, “NO!” to changing the definition of marriage….Your children will be exposed to such filth and you will have helped to create the filth. Would you let your child run out into the street of oncoming traffic?????

    • .
      They are YOUR children, @Jacqueleen:disqus — where do you think LGBT children come from but heterosexuals, those pesky heterosexuals who insist on sexing it up at every opportunity.

      Even though more than half — 50%+ — of some demographic groups of children live in single parent families.

      Oh, but you go on and focus on little, inconsequential things, so ignore that 50%+ statistic — that’s much to hard to understand and address with loving support.

      Take the easy route of hateful bigotry towards the underdog minority every time.

      But we all could love.

      Right?

      Why not?

      Let’s try it now.

      C’mon, folks.

      Love.

      Only love.
      .

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes
        vitiórum, sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo
        avaritiæ, causa discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum
        scias, Christum Dóminum vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus
        est, in Joseph venúndatus, in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni
        triumphátor fuit. Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in
        nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum
        Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum.

        Amen.

  • VP Mary

    Is anyone surprised?

  • But there’s no slippery slope!

  • JohnE_o

    From the linked article:

    Although same-sex marriages are not recognised as legitimate under Thai law, the trio were able to consummate their love under Buddhist law in the symbolic ceremony.

    Note that even fellows of these guys getting married would not be recognized under Thai civil law.

    You guys are getting in a twist over something that is not even recognized under the Civil Law where the “symbolic ceremony” was held.

    • GG

      Yes, because two men pretending to be married is so reasonable. Adding another one is so unlikely.

  • SnowBlossoms

    They look like kids. What a sick world. Lord have Mercy!

    • .
      Yeah, make judgments based on how someone looks.
      .
      Lord have Mercy indeed.
      .

      • SnowBlossoms

        You sure have a lot of angry comments, peterblaise. Why?

        • .
          Catholic parents and 12 years of Catholic nuns.
          .
          You?
          .

          • ForChristAlone

            You lie

          • ForChristAlone

            EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
            spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
            Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
            terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
            imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
            mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
            sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
            discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
            vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
            in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
            Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
            Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen…,,,….

          • SnowBlossoms

            I’m not angry anymore, but I used to be. I saw your photos on website. Nice.

      • CarlsPatrick

        Hey pal, why don’t you quit upvoting yourself. You’re not gaining any favors that way.

        • .
          What IS your suggesting for me gaining favors here or with you, then, @CarlsPatrick:disqus?
          __________

          I use the ^ v vote markers as placeholders so I know how far I’ve read through a thread next time I visit — Disqus does not count self votes in totals.
          .

          • ForChristAlone

            EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
            spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
            Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
            terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
            imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
            mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
            sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
            discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
            vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
            in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
            Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
            Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen..,,,,..,

      • CarlsPatrick

        He’s not judging. He’s stating the facts. When a deficient like doesn’t like to hear the facts, you call it judgemental.

        • .
          Oh, thanks for clarifying, @CarlsPatrick:disqus.

          I thought @SnowBlossoms:disqus meant, “young people do not deserve equal rights”.

          My bad.
          .

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen..,.,..,

  • Gail Finke

    Three women in New England did this last year. Why is this the “first” such “marriage”? Or was this actually considered legal in Thailand? In America, the women (who all wore wedding gowns for the ceremony because they are “very traditional”) had all sorts of contracts drawn up together because they could not be legally married. The story has been in numerous publications; here’s the first one that came up on Google. One of them is having a baby — poor kid!
    http://forerunnerchronicles.com/married-lesbian-throuple-expecting-first-child/

    • .
      By “poor kid” do you mean the pregnant mother or her child, @gail_finke:disqus?
      .
      Gay parents are the BEST because, unlike hetero parents, gay parents almost NEVER have unintentional pregnancies, and really, really, really WANT their kids, and prepare, prepare, prepare, and pay ardent attention.
      .
      And this baby will have THREE parents — how great is that?
      .
      200%, even 300% better than heterosexual averages in many demographics.
      .
      Beat that!
      .
      For shame, you heteros.
      .
      What are you gonna do about your embarrassing performance at marriage and family building, eh?
      .
      Make yourselves BETTER?
      .
      Or try to outlaw and denigrate the competition, instead?
      .
      WWJD?!?
      .

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen….,,,,..

  • James Shaw

    You know, this is the logical outcome of their sick beliefs. It seems to me, in the past year or so things have been snowballing at a rapid pace. I want to complain, but what’s the point? Western Civ is now in check mate as far as I’m concerned.

    • .
      Whew — progress has been hard wrought from the clutches of the dead-and-dying death culture, @James Shaw:disqus.
      .

      • CarlsPatrick

        A dead and dying culture from the creation of the marriage redefinition. In fact all this gay-fest destroyed the most powerful nations in history.

        • .
          Name one recent gay head of state across the world.

          Then identify the dependent resulting destruction of that nation.

          I’ll wait, @CarlsPatrick:disqus.
          .

          • CarlsPatrick

            The sky doesn’t fall overnight. Historically we had Ancient Rome, Egypt, Greece, Persia, etc. Europe is on it’s way down, America is the Babylon of the world since anything goes. That is what’s identified. In your warped little mind, name one contribution by any gay agenda that didn’t collapse. If you claim there is one, then you’re lying.

            • .
              You build your fears into an imaginary monster that plagues you no end, @CarlsPatrick:disqus.

              It’s not a gay addenda.

              It’s equal rights, no discrimination.

              For anyone.

              For all.
              __________

              Back at ya:

              Name one contribution any black or woman or handicapped or religious minority or immigrant or native or indigenous “agenda” that didn’t collapse before they were “allowed” equality under law.

              Your paradigm is flawed.

              And, more importantly:

              why do you care so much to exclude some of we-the-people from all of we-the-people?
              .

              • ForChristAlone

                EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
                spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
                Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
                terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
                imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
                mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
                sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
                discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
                vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
                in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
                Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
                Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen….,,,..

              • CarlsPatrick

                This “we-the-people” is designated for only a chosen few. All the idiotic supporters of SSM and the redefinition of marriage are not seeking equality. They seek to control the world. By the way, I don’t like the look of your face. You look like an angry retard.

                • Lutesuite

                  This “we-the-people” is designated for only a chosen few.

                  …says the guy who accuses the LGBTQ community of sounding like Nazis.

                  One day, CarlsPatrick, you’ll look up the word “irony” in the dictionary, and a realization will slowly dawn on you.

                  • CarlsPatrick

                    I won’t lose sleep over that definition. The LGBQ is a complete Nazi parallel. One day, Lutesuite, you’ll be the one looking up the words “liar”, “mass murderer” and “fraud” in the dictionary and a realization will dawn on you.

                  • James of Clan Scott

                    Even Andrew Sullivan attacks what he calls the Gaystopo.

                    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-a-heretic-ctd/

                    It’s not all black and white son.

                    • Lutesuite

                      It’s not all black and white son.

                      No, it isn’t. So maybe you should explain that to all your buddies here who paint all gay rights advocates as “Nazis”.

                      I’m not sure I agree with Sullivan there. The battle against anti-miscegenation laws was won decades ago. But if a CEO were to express support for them today, how many nanoseconds do you think it would take before he was fired? And, afterwards, would people be defending him as a victim of anti-racist “fascists”? Or seeing him as a victim of his own stupidity and disregard for the reputation of his company?

                    • James of Clan Scott

                      Maybe you should first explain that to the savages in your camp who invaded St Patrick’s Cathedral and spat on a Eucharist during Mass.

                      Act Up where Jerks long before the Westburro Baptist Church got going. Don’t even get me started on the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

                      >I’m not sure I agree with Sullivan there.

                      Sure believe in the absolute sinlessness of the gay rights movement. Believe they aren’t really capable of taking away or are in fact trying to take away the rights of their opponents I am sure that will end well…not.

                      Andrew is civilized and reasonable here. The opinion contrary to his is not.

                      If you want to have a mock ceremony celebrating a gay marriage I am not sure why I must be forced to attend or directly participate in it against my will?

                      i would not force a Muslim to participate in a ceremony that proclaimed God a Trinity if he was against it. Or bake a cake celebrating the Deity of Christ if he feels uncomfortable with it.
                      Nor would I force an Atheist to pray or take part in worship.
                      What is wrong with the gay rights movement today? It’s like the 60’s never happened or all the wrong lessons where taken from them.

                      >The battle against anti-miscegenation laws was won decades ago. But if a CEO were to express support for them today, how many nanoseconds do you think it would take before he was fired? And, afterwards, would people be defending him as a victim of anti-racist “fascists”? Or seeing him as a victim of his own stupidity and disregard for the reputation of his company.

                      This assumes there is an equivalence between skin color and sexual morality. So you are already begging the question.
                      But I say let the Market decide not the government.

                    • Lutesuite

                      Maybe you should first explain that to the savages in your camp who invaded St Patrick’s Cathedral and spat on a Eucharist during Mass.

                      You want to play tit-for-tat and go thru the acts of violence and vandalism that have been perpetrated against the LGBTQ community? Believe me, if we do that, after you run out of cases, I’ll still be able to go on for decades. I’ll match your trivial example of some crackers being spat on (not that I condone that), with the first instance that came up on my Google search, one involving abductioin, confinement and torture by members of a church:

                      http://www.wspa.com/story/27588131/wnc-church-members-indicted-on-assault-kidnapping-charge

                      Sure believe in the absolute sinlessness of the gay rights movement. Believe they aren’t really capable of taking away or are in fact trying to take away the rights of their opponents I am sure that will end well…not.

                      I don’t claim them to be “sinless”. No one is perfect. But you’ve yet to come up with any examples of them taking away rights. Thought I see you’re trying, and failing:

                      i would not force a Muslim to participate in a ceremony that proclaimed God a Trinity if he was against it. Or bake a cake celebrating the Deity of Christ if he feels uncomfortable with it.
                      Nor would I force an Atheist to pray or take part in worship.

                      Nor is anyone forcing you to take part in a SSM ceremony. You’re obviously alluding to cases where business have been found guilty of violating anti-discrimination laws by refusing to sell wedding cakes to gay customers. But that is simply requiring people to follow laws that apply to all. If they can’t do business while respecting the law, they need to find another line of work.

                      This assumes there is an equivalence between skin color and sexual morality. So you are already begging the question.
                      But I say let the Market decide not the government.

                      No, it assumes that sexual orientation is frequently a grounds for discrimination. Which is obviously a fact.

                      And while human rights should not be decided by “the market”, it so happens that the market is deciding, And it’s not buying what you bigots are selling. So, sorry, you lose either way.

                    • James Clan of Scott

                      >You want to play tit-for-tat and go thru the acts of violence and vandalism that have been perpetrated against the LGBTQ…

                      I don’t BTW your the one who brought it up. And yes I CAN wate time citing many instances of gay violence up unto acts of murder so stop being an uncivilized brat & I already anticipate your inevitable “no true Scotmen” defense of it.

                      Why don’t we have a meaningful discussion instead?

                      >I don’t claim them to be “sinless”. No one is perfect. But you’ve yet to come up with any examples of them taking away rights. Thought I see you’re trying, and failing:

                      Yes I note this is an argumentative tactic you seem to use with other people. Make them defend their tangent assertions to the N’th degree while yours are accepted as brute facts. That is not rational argument that is ball busting. Can we do better?

                      >Nor is anyone forcing you to take part in a SSM ceremony.

                      Fining someone thousands of dollars for not doing something is force.

                      >You’re obviously alluding to cases where business have been found guilty of violating anti-discrimination laws by refusing to sell wedding cakes to gay customers.

                      If the vendor sold ready made wedding cakes and refused to sell one to a customer because it might be used in a same sex wedding that would be illegal. But specialized services that craft a messages the vendor should be allowed to opt out. This goes for gays who don’t want to bake cakes with citations from the Bible or Koran that condemn homosexual conduct.

                      It’s not a case of simply “refusing to service someone because they are gay”. It never was.

                      >But that is simply requiring people to follow laws that apply to all. If they can’t do business while respecting the law, they need to find another line of work.

                      What does Law have to do with anything? If the law is wrong or burdensome to freedom then change it. If “well it’s the law” where a meaningful argument then why lobby to overthrow “restrictive” marriage laws?

                      >No, it assumes that sexual orientation is frequently a grounds for discrimination. Which is obviously a fact.

                      I agree in the notorious case of a doctor who refused to treat a child whose guardians where a Lesbian couple. But I see no logic in trying to force attendance at a wedding or crafting goods that convey a message the person objects too & I believe that across the board. I respect your right to refuse to put religious messages on a cake if you don’t want too. I can alway buy from someone else. I expect the same courtesy in return. Why would that be hard? It seems civilized like Andrew Sullivan is being here.

                      >And while human rights should not be decided by “the market”, it so happens that the market is deciding, And it’s not buying what you bigots are selling. So, sorry, you lose either way.

                      Rather it’s not the state’s job to socially engineer only to guard liberty.

                      I respect your right to refuse (if you choose) to craft speech you disagree with. Wither right wing political speech or religion.

                      I expect the same and it is self evident that is not happening from the gay side in many cases (with a few civilized exceptions) even thought we where promised gay marriage would not effect us.

                      It’s not either/or.

                      Reason dictates there are some case even today of unjust discrimination against gays. But there clearly are cases of it going in the other direction.

                    • Lutesuite

                      If the vendor sold ready made wedding cakes and refused to sell one to a customer because it might be used in a same sex wedding that would be illegal. But specialized services that craft a messages the vendor should be allowed to opt out. This goes for gays who don’t want to bake cakes with citations from the Bible or Koran that condemn
                      homosexual conduct.

                      That’s really the crux of the issue. Is creating a cake with a personalized message that is not otherwise an endorsement of a political or religious message a form of expression, or just the provision of a service. I would say the latter, and the courts have agreed. A cake “Congratulations Steve and Janet” is no more a political message than “Congratulations Steve and Eric.” So to sell the former and not the latter is an act of discrimination.

                      OTOH, writing the message “Marriage Equality Now” may well fall under the category of forced speech, and could be refused. So long as you refuse to anyone regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

                      This is the point overlooked by the anti-gay activists who tried to force a human rights complaint against a bakery that refused to print homophobic messages. They think they’re being clever, but they’re just missing the point entirely.

                      http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/22/this-colorado-baker-refused-to-put-an-anti-gay-message-on-cakes-now-she-is-facing-a-civil-rights-complaint/

                    • James of Clan Scott

                      >That’s really the crux of the issue. Is creating a cake with a personalized message that is not otherwise an endorsement of a political or religious message a form of expression, or just the provision of a service.

                      People should have the freedom to choose what services they will provide. So I can’t turn down photographing a lesbian wedding can I turn down photographing someone nude?

                      Because if you can force one then you can force the other.

                      > I would say the latter, and the courts have agreed.

                      The Courts are wrong therefore the law must be changed.

                      >A cake “Congratulations Steve and Janet” is no more a political message than “Congratulations Steve and Eric.” So to sell the former and not the latter is an act of discrimination.

                      It is a recognition they have married. I can’t in conscience recognize that or participate. So at best they can expect a blank cake from me and they can write what they want.

                      I don’t have to treat their “marriages” equally & I won’t force them to do the same with me if they had some objection in conscience to mine.

                      >OTOH, writing the message “Marriage Equality Now” may well fall under the category of forced speech, and could be refused. So long as you refuse to anyone regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

                      Well we have some agreement. Tragically in the UK right now a Christian is being persecuted by the government for not writing that on a cake.

                      >This is the point overlooked by the anti-gay activists who tried to force a human rights complaint against a bakery that refused to print homophobic messages. They think they’re being clever, but they’re just missing the point entirely.

                      http://www.washingtonpost.com/

                      But it’s not like the gay PC chuckleheads aren’t doing the same.

                      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11211789/Christian-bakery-ordered-to-recant-over-Bert-and-Ernie-gay-marriage-cake-or-face-court.html

                      This guy is being forced to craft the very speech you object too.

                      >So long as you refuse to anyone regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

                      I can assure you I would refuse to photograph a wedding between two straight men but I would have no problem doing so with a gay man & Lesbian who wanted to marry.

                      Since it is the same sex wedding I object too not the orientation of the participants.

                    • Lutesuite

                      People should have the freedom to choose what services they will provide. So I can’t turn down photographing a lesbian wedding can I turn down photographing someone nude?

                      Because if you can force one then you can force the other.

                      Absolutely. But if you’re going to photograph someone in the nude, you can’t agree to do it for white customers but not black ones, or Christian ones but not Jewish ones, or straight ones but not gay ones.

                      Similarly, a baker doesn’t have to sell wedding cakes to anyone. But if he does, then he has to sell them to everyone regardless (depending on local law) of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

                      It is a recognition they have married. I can’t in conscience recognize that or participate.

                      And you don’t have to. You just have to sell them a cake, like you would any other paying customer.

                      Well we have some agreement. Tragically in the UK right now a Christian is being persecuted by the government for not writing that on a cake.

                      Yes, we’re still in agreement on that one.

                      I can assure you I would refuse to photograph a wedding between two straight men but I would have no problem doing so with a gay man & Lesbian who wanted to marry.

                      Since it is the same sex wedding I object too not the orientation of the participants.

                      Um, yeah. People try that ploy but, not surprisingly, it doesn’t work. As the saying goes: “A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.”

                    • James of Clan Scott

                      >Absolutely. But if you’re going to photograph someone in the
                      nude, you can’t agree to do it for white customers but not black ones, or
                      Christian ones but not Jewish ones, or straight ones but not gay ones.

                      Rather I will not photograph a same sex wedding even if the
                      marriage is between two straight men but I obviously can’t refuse to photograph
                      a gay man and a lesbian getting married.

                      >Similarly, a baker doesn’t have to sell wedding cakes to anyone.
                      But if he does, then he has to sell them to everyone regardless (depending on
                      local law) of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

                      If it is a ready made cake sitting in the window I agree 100%
                      the moment you tell me I MUST put a male/male or female/female figurines then
                      you cross the line.

                      >And you don’t have to. You just have to sell them a cake,
                      like you would any other paying customer.

                      Again that will only apply if the cake is message free and
                      generic. Put your own message on it I
                      am not involved.

                      >Yes, we’re still in agreement on that one.

                      Cheers then.

                      >Um,
                      yeah. People try that ploy but, not surprisingly, it doesn’t work. As the
                      saying goes: “A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.”

                      Except the
                      Pope wears a yarmulke, as do the Cardinals and so do Muslims. The distinction is valid. Two men marrying is evil to me. A man and a woman is not. It doesn’t matter if the two men are gay, bi
                      or straight but curious. It doesn’t matter
                      if the man and woman are bi or gay but curious.
                      I should be allowed to refrain from photographing weddings who themes I
                      find immoral or against my belief. I
                      wouldn’t photograph a Satanic Wedding even between a man and woman.

                      What I ask
                      is not unreasonable.

                    • Lutesuite

                      What I ask is not unreasonable.

                      Perhaps. But is far less unreasonable for someone to expect, when he goes to a baker with expectation of paying for and receiving a cake, that this happens. If someone does not expect to provide cakes to paying customers, he probably should not open a business that sells cakes.

                      Any law limits someone’s rights. Anti-discrimination laws limit the rights of someone to refuse to do business with someone because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

                      Our society has decided that eliminating this discrimination is an important enough objective that it justifies limiting some of the freedoms of people who want to discriminate against others. Really, that not a very difficult choice when you think about it.

                      And allowing religious exemptions to such laws would simply make them meaningless. You say your religion won’t allow you to sell wedding cakes for same-sex couples. The next guy says his religion won’t let him sell them to mixed race couples. The restaurant owner down the street says his religion won’t allow black customers to enter thru the front door. The next guy says his religion won’t allow him to serve food to Jewish customers. And so on.

                      A religious exemption would basically mean anyone could violate any antidiscrimination law one wishes, and just say “But it’s my religion” as an excuse.

                      So your argument is basically against any and all forms of antidisrimination legislation, not just those protecting homosexuals. So if that is your argument, make it, rather than trying to say you’re only talking about a narrow set of circumstances.

                    • James of Clan Scott

                      @Lutesuite

                      >Perhaps. But it is far less unreasonable for someone to expect that, when he goes to a baker with the intention of paying for and receiving a cake, he will pay for and receive a cake. If someone does not want to provide cakes to paying customers, he probably should not open a business that sells cakes.

                      What business is that of yours? Besides I know if I go into an Orthodox Jewish bakery I can’t expect them to bake a Jews For Jesus themed cake for a Jews for Jesus event. If it is known to you the baker is a devout Christian, politeness demands you not ask them to do what might offend their beliefs.

                      >Any law limits someone’s rights. Anti-discrimination laws limit the rights of someone to refuse to do business with someone else on the basis of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

                      Here is your fallacy nobody is being asked to be given the right to refuse to do business with someone because of their sexual orientation. Rather I can refuse to photograph a same sex wedding just as I can refuse to photograph a Satanic Black Mass. That the two “grooms” might be gay or bi or straight but curious is not relevant nor in itself an impediment to serve them. But the event in either case is evil for me.

                      >Our society has decided that eliminating this discrimination is an important enough objective that it justifies limiting some of the freedoms of people who want to discriminate against others. Really, that not a very difficult choice when you think about it.

                      We are not asking for the right to discriminate against others based on who they are or what they are into behind closed doors. We are demanding our right to opt out of any direct
                      participation in a same sex so called wedding ceremony. This bait and switch of claiming this is about the right to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation is a red herring.

                      Refusal to yield on this tells that I should grant no tolerance toward any legal recognition of same sex marriage as it will hurt my freedom. You forcing me to bake a cake themed for a same sex wedding hurts my freedom. You are not harmed by being denied the right to force me in the first place. Why would you want to do that anyway?

                      >And allowing religious exemptions to such laws would simply make them meaningless. You say your religion won’t allow you to sell wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

                      More red herrings. Like I said if you have ready made cakes even wedding themed ones you can’t not sell them on the pretense it might be used in a sinful same sex wedding. If I buy a no frills wedding cake & choose to jump on it when i get it home that is my business. But me trying to force you to make a “I love George Bush” themed wedding cake I might predict from your other posts is not something you would want to be forced to do.

                      >The next guy says his religion won’t let him sell them to mixed race couples. The restaurant owner down the street says his religion won’t allow black customers to enter thru the front door. The next guy says his religion won’t allow him to serve food to Jewish customers. And so on.

                      Again not asking for the right to be allowed to discriminate carte blanch based on religion. I am asking for reasonable exemptions from certain narrowly defined circumstances. If you won’t be amiable there is no reason to stop the Republican majorities on the State level from going to far in the other direction.

                      >So your argument is basically against any and all forms of anti-disrimination legislation, not just those protecting homosexuals. So if that is your argument, make it, rather than trying to say you’re only talking about a narrow set of circumstances.

                      Where did I make that claim? Can you point to a post? I am asking for the right to opt out of specific narrow activities based on religion. Like I said not only would i refuse to photograph a same sex wedding I would refuse to photograph a Satanic wedding Ceremony between a man and woman. Could a gay photographer be forced to photograph an event at the Westburro Baptist Church?

                      My position is still reasonable. I submit you have no answer to it so you construct a straw man that I don’t endorse at all.

                      Ironically the following case is not against the law & it is wrong.

                      http://www.power1067.com/2015/02/20/doc-refuses-to-treat-baby-with-lesbian-moms/

                      “The physician did nothing illegal under Michigan law.”

                      i can say that is wrong from an orthodox Catholic Christian perspective. But do we have to re-write laws so the above is legal and possible just because you want to force me to photograph your hypothetical same sex wedding(I believe you are not gay so it’s a CHUCK AND LARRY AFFAIR) or otherwise leave the photography business?

                      In the end you are only hurting your own freedom guy.

                    • GG

                      “Gay rights”? Huh? you use these terms as if they are legitimate. Where do rights come from?

          • ForChristAlone

            EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
            spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
            Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
            terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
            imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
            mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
            sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
            discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
            vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
            in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
            Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
            Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen…,,..,

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen..,,,,..

  • CarlsPatrick

    A sick world run by sick people. But Thailand has always been corrupt in the first place.

    • .
      “Run by”?

      Marriage is a voluntary enterprise run by the marriage partners, @CarlsPatrick:disqus.
      .

      • CarlsPatrick

        But allows this “voluntary” enterprise? Sick people like you? I think that’s just it.

        • .
          Where do you live that rights are “allowed” rather than inborn and unalienable, not requiring anyone’s permission, @CarlsPatrick:disqus?
          .

          • CarlsPatrick

            Not of this is inborn. Only inherited by twisted social engineering.

            • .
              @CarlsPatrick:disqus, you’re the one who used the word “allow”.

              Please stay on your own point.

              Where do you live where anyone’s rights are only expressible via being “allowed” by others?

              Thanks.
              __________

              PS — All religion, for comparative example, is “social engineering” and not “inborn”.

              So I’m not sure of your point about “allowing” rights depending on “inborn” or “social engineering”.

              Explain that, too, if you care to have me understand your beliefs and preferences for your own behavior.

              Thanks.
              .

              • CarlsPatrick

                You’re so sick, naive and out of your mind. How many more things does the stupidity of mankind have to invent? All elements of the Catholic religion which is the only religion not invented were adapted from natural law, and that includes marriage between one man and one woman.

                • .
                  When did the hierarchy of the Catholic church invent and rationalize their decision to participate in the pre-existing practice of social and civil marriage, @CarlsPatrick:disqus?

                  I’ll wait (I know the answer).
                  .

                  • ForChristAlone

                    This is a site for faithful Catholics. Are you among them? Do you believe all that the Catholic church teaches and professes, since that’s what is meant by “faithful Catholic.”

                    • Lutesuite

                      Do you believe all that the Catholic church teaches and professes, since that’s what is meant by “faithful Catholic.”

                      Sounds more like what it means to be a mindless zombie.

                    • James of Clan Scott

                      Do you believe to be a skeptic that means you must trust everything automatically? No?

                      Also to be an Atheist is it to profess the existence of a God? No?

                      So i can be a faithful to the philosophy of skepticism if I do the above & I can faithfully state I am an Atheist even thought I profess the existence of God?

                      Gee if you say no then how mindlessly dogmatic.;-)

                      It doesn’t logically follow if a person believes all the Catholic Church teaches and professes they are a mindless Zombie. Since they might have good philosophical reasons for believing in God and a host of other arguments and whatnot put forth my Catholic Apologetics. Not too few are ex-Atheists.

                      Such mindless insult absent rational argument makes you more of a Gnu Atheist than a reasonable one. You should strive to be one of the later not the former.

                      Peace.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
                    spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
                    Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
                    terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
                    imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
                    mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
                    sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
                    discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
                    vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
                    in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
                    Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
                    Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen…,,…

                  • CarlsPatrick

                    If you think it’s all myth and legend, well then, marriage was always between one man and one woman. This basic block held societies together the gay fest arrived.

              • ForChristAlone

                EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
                spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
                Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
                terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
                imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
                mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
                sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
                discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
                vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
                in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
                Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
                Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen..,…,

          • ForChristAlone

            EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
            spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
            Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
            terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
            imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
            mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
            sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
            discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
            vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
            in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
            Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
            Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen..,,,,.

      • ForChristAlone

        EXORCIZO te, immundíssime
        spíritus, omnis incúrsio adversárii, omne phantasma, omnis légio, in nómine
        Dómini nostri Jesu+Christi eradicáre, et effugáre ab hoc plásmate Dei +. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui te de supérnis cæaelórum in inferióra
        terræ demérgi præcépit. Ipse tibi ímperat, qui mari, ventis et tempestátibus
        imperávit. Audi ergo, et time, sátana, inimice fidei, hostis géneris humáni,
        mortis addúctor, vitæ raptor, justítiæ declinátor, malórum radix, fomes vitiórum,
        sedúctor hóminum, próditur géntium, incitátor invídiæ, origo avaritiæ, causa
        discórdiæ, excitátor dolórum: quid stas, et resistis, cum scias, Christum Dóminum
        vias tuas pérdere? Illum métue, qui in Isaac immolátus est, in Joseph venúndatus,
        in agno occísus, in hómine crucifixus, deinde inférni triumphátor fuit.
        Sequentes crucis fiat in fronte obsessi. Recéde ergo in nómine Patris +, et Fílii +, et Spíritus + Sancti: da locum Spirítui Sancto, per hoc signum sanctæ + Crucis Jesu Christi Dómini nostri: Qui cum Patre et eódem
        Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen..,…

  • this it’s funny. There are tons of men in Thailand taking three or more wives and they have been doing it for forever. I’m monogamous with my husband and that’s my preference. That’s the general consensus everywhere I’d say but you might have a few here or there that might have this preference. However, gay men wanting more than one spouse would be an even smaller percentage of the gay population, of the population wanting to take another spouse and of the general population. So you’re basically exaggerating and expounding upon this one event and trying to generalize all gay people into that. Though in reality a nominal percentage of us would even think of this much less want to do it. All the gay men and women I’ve met are pretty jealous and selfish over their significant other because we have to stay strong to be together so we can deal with issues like this.

    • John Flaherty

      So this is your idea of “diversity”? It’s perfectly OK for everyone because some folks in Thailand have already done it for ages?
      I think it worth noting again that, like the original author said, progressive voices here in the ‘States didn’t even consider demanding this even one generation past.

      Moral virtue is not subject to a majority vote.

      • dark477

        actually is is. morality change with every generation.

        • John Flaherty

          The fact that you and/or many refuse to live by morally virtuous principles does not mean that morality has changed. It merely means that you reject the idea of constant morals for whatever reason or excuse you choose.

          • dark477

            it’s your morality nor mine and no one is obligated to follow YOUR definition of morality

            • John Flaherty

              “My morality”? Hardly, dark. No, the morality of which I speak is none other than that proposed by the Catholic Church. It’s the morality aimed at offering you the challenge and chance to repent of your sins. It’s the morality that will help you on the way to Heaven. Put differently, it’s the morality that would seek to keep your soul from suffering Hell.

              i didn’t define it. Christ, Himself, did.

              • dark477

                you define it. even the catholic church has changed what it considers moral

                • GG

                  Really? Show us.

                • John Flaherty

                  That’s only true to someone who wishes to find an excuse to reject the Church’s teaching, dark.

                  • dark477

                    i was never catholic so i can’t reject it’s teachings.

                    • John Flaherty

                      *chuckles* Failing to be Catholic seems to me a great start at rejecting it’s teachings.

                    • dark477

                      you can’t fail if you don’t try

            • GG

              No one is obligated to accept your perversion.

              • dark477

                they don’t have too but the government will.

                • GG

                  Like Nazi Germany. Got it.

                  • dark477

                    not even close. it doesn’t matter if the an individual doesn’t recognize a marriage as valid since only the government recognition is needed to validate a marriage

                    • GG

                      The govmint has to have just laws. He we have unjust laws we have oppression. Children have rights.

                    • dark477

                      what does that have do with this?

                    • GG

                      You are making an unjust law supreme just because it exists. These strange and abnormal relationships affect kids. Once the State affirms insanity as normal children will be hurt. It is pure evil.

                    • dark477

                      no legitimate studies have found that children are affected negatively by being raised by same sex couples.

                    • GG

                      There is plenty of evidence they harm, but that is not the real issue. We humans are not mere materialists and utilitarians. We have intelligence and reason. Two men acting as husband and wife is evil beyond comprehension. Children have rights. Deviant behavior has no right. None.

                    • dark477

                      the courts say that those “deviants” do have rights including the right marriage to raise families. and children have a right to a happy caring home not to a mother and farther.

                    • GG

                      They have rights not to be subjected to weirdos pretending to be parents. An unjust law is no law.

                    • dark477

                      a law is a law and they aren’t pretending they are parents.

                    • GG

                      An unjust law is no law. Only nazi types accept unjust laws.

                    • dark477

                      it doesn’t matter what you think is unjust

                    • GG

                      It does not matter what you think. What matters is objective truth. Perversion is wrong. Period.

            • Bob

              Agreed!

              Where do you live? What’s your address? Do you have some cool toys? I don’t believe stealing is immoral, so I’ll be over to grab your stuff!

              Will you leave your door unlocked, or should I kick it in? What’s best?

              • dark477

                stealing is illegal so it doesn’t mater if you don’t think it’s immoral

                • Bob

                  Who dark boy….whooaaaaa!

                  But you said morality is whatever i want it to be? If morality is relative, shouldn’t the laws on murder and theft change? I don’t think they’re wrong, anymore than a gay marriage advocate doesn’t think two men marring is wrong and wants marriage laws changed!

                  look…..I was agreeing with you! Moral laws can change, so how under your logic can stealing be illegal if I don’t believe it’s a crime? Therefore, I can steal all I want to!!!!

                  So once again……where do you live??

                  • dark477

                    only if you can get the majority to agree with you or present valid legal argument. I doubt you’re capable of doing either. also it doesn’t matter if don’t consider it a crime the laws still apply

                    • Bob

                      Oh….so laws are a popularity contest now? Cool! I can easily get a majority of people to make theft A-OK!

                      This is easier than I thought!

                    • dark477

                      they always have been

                    • GG

                      You are confused.

        • GG

          Nope. The truth does not change. Perversion can grow though.

          • dark477

            morality is a matter of perspective there is no true morality.

            • Bob

              Cool!!! Once again, I’m all about theft now!

              Do you own a car? Can we stop being unreasonable and give me your address so I can rip you off, for crying out loud?!

              • dark477

                again it’s illegal to steal so it doesn’t matter if don’t consider theft immoral. why do you assume that moral relativism means you can do whatever you want without repercussions?

                • Bob

                  Like gay marriage, your state just changed the laws on theft. Stealing is now legal!

                  I’ll be over tonight…,.act surprised when I drive away in your car…..

                  • dark477

                    you’re an idiot. what exactly are you trying to prove?

                    • GG

                      That you reason poorly. It is self evident.

                    • Bob

                      Amen……

                      He wasn’t picking up on that, was he?

                    • GG

                      He is obstinate and shallow.

        • Bob

          “morality changes with every generation.”

          Really?????

          COOL!! Now I can toss out those silly commandments to not kill or steal!

          I’ll be back……I’m heading over to my neighbors house and knocking him off, grabbing his keys to his Corvette, and giving his wife a little “what for!”

          Thanks, dark477! I always found the Ten Commandments sooooooo constricting and obsolete!

          • dark477

            the law doesn’t care about morality. you can’t steal or kill not because those things are considered immoral but because they’re illegal.

            • Bob

              Darky, we’re on the same side!

              If marriage laws should change based upon people’s desires then so should laws on theft and killing! see how we think alike?

              Do you have a lot of money in the bank? What’s your bank account numbers and passcode? May I now have them please?

              • dark477

                they aren’t being changed based on peoples desires they’re being changed based on the legal arguments presented. the arguemnt is that bans on gay marrige violate previous court rulings and the Constitution

                • GG

                  Those legal arguments are moral based. Just see justice Kennedy. A moral idiot, but still a moral argument.

                  • dark477

                    they’re based on the law

                    • GG

                      The law is based in morality. All law.

                    • dark477

                      no it’s based on logic. morality is far too subjective to be a good basis for law

                    • GG

                      Logic is not opposed to morality. They go together. All law is moral based. To deny that is to deny logic.

                    • dark477

                      no logic has nothing do with morality, a logical decision can also be immoral one

                    • GG

                      Logic has everything to do with morality. You separate them and place them in opposition so you can impose this new ideology of evil. The Nazis said the same as you say here.

            • Bob

              “The law doesn’t care about morality.”

              Darky…..it’s been fun playing with ya…..but you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about……*sigh*……that phrase says it all.

              • dark477

                it’s doesn’t. if something is illegal then you cannot do it even if you disagree with the law

                • GG

                  That is moral reasoning.

                  • dark477

                    no it’s a fact. if an act is illegal you cannot do it even if you believe the act is moral.

                    • GG

                      You are so confused. You are proving morality is the basis of the law. That is a fact.

                    • dark477
                    • GG

                      I do not visit gay sites. All law is moral in nature, even tax law is moral law. It prescribes and proscribes.

                    • dark477

                      do you even what pathos is you supid pig?

                    • GG

                      Oh I know it. It is gay supportive. Even the “Catholic” section has all lefties there pretending to be orthodox. The essay you link is sophistry.

            • GG

              That is nonsense. It is all based on morality. How do you think illegal comes about? The ones asking for something or against something are making a moral judgement.

              • dark477

                laws are decided based on what can ensure an orderly society.

                • GG

                  That is a moral issue too.

                  • dark477
                    • GG

                      The gay Patheos people are wrong as usual. The essay makes an error at the start and goes on and on in a vapid and facile way. The distinct he made is and error and frankly stupid. Who would accept such disingenuous logic?

                    • dark477

                      because she’s right but I wouldn’t expect a christian pig to understand,

                    • GG

                      No, she is a pseudo intellectual who is way over her head.

        • GG

          Yea. and apparently IQ drops.

          • dark477

            actually studies have found that IQ are getting higher which is probably why more people are rejecting religion

            http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/03/smarter.aspx

            • GG

              That is do to testing techniques. People are not smarter, just more acquired knowledge.

              What is changing is increasing tyranny.

              • dark477

                it’s not tyranny society is just not giving religion the special treatment any more.

                • GG

                  It is oppression to foist deviant behavior on others.

                  • dark477

                    no one’s doing that.

                    • GG

                      The poor kids subjected to abnormal relations are oppressed. It is evil.

                    • dark477

                      how are they oppressed?

                    • GG

                      They are denied a mother and father and subjected to men acting like mother and father. Pure evil. Sick.

                    • dark477

                      not a crime and one of your business. unless they’re neglecting or abusing (and I mean real abuse not your imaginary kind) how they care for their children is none of your concern

                    • GG

                      Spoken like a Nazi.

                    • dark477

                      do you even know what the Nazis did?

                    • GG

                      Yes, they foisted their evil ideology on society.

    • ForChristAlone

      Men cannot have husbands despite how much you may wish it to be so.

      • GG

        So true. Did you ever think you would need to write such a sentence? How bizarre.

  • Neil

    I’m not sure they are the first, but they aren’t the only ones! http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/

    • But there’s no slippery slope!

      • dark477

        no there isn’t since this isn’t recognized as a legal marriage by the Thai government

        • GG

          So what? It is no more crazy than two men.

          • dark477

            sites like are acting like this is a valid marriage but it isn’t, gay marriage isn’t even legal in Thailand so this cannot be used as an example of what gay marriage will lead to

            • GG

              Legal is not the only issue. It is very possible and is no more absurd than two men marrying.

  • Jay_Junk

    If you check this out you will find that this event was not a legal marriage in Thailand. So it is just a publicity stunt. I can imagine them sitting around saying “Gee how can we stir up the conservative Christians into a frenzy. Oh! I know let’s have a 3 guy wedding” Yep it works every time.

    • GG

      Uh huh. Because 3 is so much crazier than 2. Right.

  • CarlsPatrick

    They look like a triplet of demented retards. Must be the diseases they contracted from each other.

    • John200

      No way, daddy, it’s because of the diseases they give each other (sarc/off).

  • TERRY

    Those are some SERIOUSLY weird looking dudes.

    Just commenting

    • John200

      The demented often look weird. Here we have a three-person example.

      Because they look weird, you should consider the possibility that they are weird. Your eyes and common sense are suggesting something. It is worth a followup.

  • Lutesuite

    From the Daily Mail article reporting this story:

    Although same-sex marriages are not recognised as legitimate under Thai law, the trio were able to consummate their love under Buddhist law in the symbolic ceremony.

    And with that single sentence, the entire premise of Mr. Kengor’s article is shot down, and he is revealed as the alarmist hate-monger he is.

    • GG

      The law is only one issue. That they feel free to engage in it is proof enough. It is a tyranny.

      • Lutesuite

        People being able to make decisions regarding their own personal lives is “tyranny”?

        I think you need to look up the definition of that word.

        • GG

          It is a public issue. Foisting their deviant lives on the rest of society is hardly private.

          • Lutesuite

            I’ve never had any of these “deviants” complain about my flaunting my non-deviant heterosexuality in public. It just seems the polite thing to do, to extend to them the same courtesy.

            • GG

              The deviants affect children. Exposing them to a bizarre relationship where two, or more, men pretend to be mother and father. No sane person grasps that as good.

              • Lutesuite

                No sane person grasps that as good.

                Correction: No one who isn’t a hateful bigot perceives that as bad.

                • GG

                  No, a normal decent person would never expose children to such perversion. To even argue in favor of such disgusting things is evidence of an inverted mind. Sick. You bigot.

                  • Lutesuite

                    No, a normal decent person would never expose children to such
                    perversion.

                    I quite agree. Parents should not engage in sexual activity in front of their children. However, I think that applies equally to gay and to straight parents.

                    Do you really think children should be exposed to non-“deviant”, non-“perverse” sex? You’re really sick.

                    • GG

                      I was not talking about perverted sexual acts. I was referring to evil ideology and false modeling.

                    • Lutesuite

                      I was not talking about perverted sexual acts. I was referring to evil ideology and false modeling.

                      You mean like teaching kids that homosexuality is “disordered” and “sinful”, for example?

                    • GG

                      No, why would that be wrong? You seem inverted. Two men pretending to be a mother and father is evil and absurd.

  • PixilDot

    I once lived in a very large apartment with 4 roommates – it was a nightmare! I can’t imagine this lasting very long… We were VERY happy when the lease was up at the end of the year! LOL!

  • Atilla The Possum

    What next for these twisted people? Entire stadia being rented out like the Moonies mass weddings except, in this case, the seats are filled entirely by men or entirely by women marrying the one person?
    Judging by this article, it’s not as ridiculous or as outlandish …
    A hedonistic orgy by the powers invested in the law of the land but NOT BY GOD!

  • James of Clan Scott

    Gay opponents of same sex marriage.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/14/legendary-gay-designers-oppose-gay-marriage-gay-parenting-surrogacy/

    Quote-“The pair have long been outspoken about gay marriage. In 2013, when the LondonTelegraph asked them if they had ever considered getting married, they answered, “What? Never!” Dolce said, “I’m a practicing Catholic.”

    More guys like these.

    • Lutesuite

      Gay opponents of same sex marriage.

      If they don’t want to get married, they don’t have to. No one’s forcing them.

      • James of Clan Scott

        Anecdotally I remember something called the gay case against gay marriage.

        To summarize from memory it was argued that by lobbying for gay marriage gays were in essence saying heterosexuals where in fact the norm(thus sternly implying they are not) and it was incumbent for gays to try to imitate heterosexuals as closely as possible and be like them as much as possible rather than be content with being themselves & having their own type of relationships.

        It is funny in the 60’s and 70’s the libertine classes were saying marriage was an outdated outmoded hopelessly Patriarchal institution. Now they are saying we Catholics are bigots unless we grant mental assent to them joining it.

        The ironic comedy……

        Note in the link above there is reference to a French gay group that is anti-gay marriage. I haven’t checked them out but I would bet dollars to donuts their objections are somewhat akin to what i just related here.

        • Kara Connor

          There are plenty of straight people who oppose marriage. Do explain why this means straight people should be banned from marrying.

          • James of Clan Scott

            I wasn’t arguing for legal opposition. I gave a gay philosophical case I remember reading once against gays being involved.

            • Kara Connor

              Ah – thanks for clarifying.

              • James of Clan Scott

                Here is a blog that seems to go with that line of thought I was channeling.

                Gays against Gay Marriage.

                https://nogaymarriage.wordpres

                Enjoy my dear.

                • Kara Connor

                  He’s all over the map in this blog. He argues that it will destroy his sexual freedom. (how about don’t get married?), that it is just to annoy the religious (he lacks imagination if he wants to do that and can’t think of anything else, and that is puerile reasoning) and goes on to say no one should have or need civil marriage. I see no cogent argument from him.

                  • James of Clan Scott

                    I don’t think he is arguing against the legal aspect of it.

                    • Kara Connor

                      No one is forcing him to get married. His rather rambling objections just confirm that he should choose not to 🙂

                    • James of Clan Scott

                      Likely then he considers it a question of prudence.

        • Lutesuite

          To summarize from memory it was argued that by lobbying for gay marriage gays were in essence saying heterosexuals where in fact the norm(thus sternly implying they are not) and it was incumbent for gays to try to imitate heterosexuals as closely as possible and be like them as much as possible rather than be content with being themselves & having their own type of relationships

          That’s not really much of an argument against legally barring homosexuals from marrying if they don’t share that view. I’m willing to bet most people who make that argument still disaree with gays having the right to marry if they wish.

          Note in the link above there is reference to a French gay group that is anti-gay marriage..

          From what I can tell, they are not gay. They’re just a bunch of guys who run around taking off their shirts to protest gay marriage. The article that Breitbart links to describes these protests as “homoerotic”. I guess the Breitbart folks don’t understand the difference between that and “homosexual.”

          .

          • James of Clan Scott

            I didn’t argue for legally banning it. Thus how could I be making a bad argument for legally banning it if I am not arguing legal at all?
            I presented a from memory primitive philosophical argument against based likely on Queer theory.

            >From what I can tell, they are not gay. They’re just a bunch of guys who run around taking off their shirts to protest gay marriage. The article that Breitbart links to describes these protests as “homoerotic”. I guess the Breitbart folks don’t understand the difference between that and “homosexual.”

            Breitbart says they are a bunch of “gay men”. As for the gay newspaper not mentioning that. It’s not unheard of for Pro-Life Gays or Republican Gays to be snubbed by their believing differently brethren. The “no true Scotmen fallacy is clearly alive and well” among Progressives in that group.

            • Lutesuite

              Breitbart says they are a bunch of “gay men”.

              Yeah, well Breitbart is not exactly renowned for the reliability of its fact-checking, is it? The only source they cite makes no mention of the protestors being gay.

              Do a Google search for “Les Hommen” and see if you find any mention of them being a gay organization.

              • James of Clan Scott

                I would say the same for MSNBC. 😉

                This tendency you have of calling for your opponents to “prove” everything to the n’th degree (i.e. that Les Hommen is a gay group)while you are allowed to make assertions that must be accepted as brute facts (i.e. Brietbart’s alleged un-reliability) is going to make for tedious and rather one sided conversation.

                • Lutesuite

                  I would say the same for MSNBC. 😉

                  This tendency you have of calling for your opponents to “prove” everything to the n’th degree (i.e. that Les Hommen is a gay group)while you are allowed to make assertions that must be accepted as brute facts (i.e. Brietbart’s alleged un-reliability) is going to make for tedious and rather one sided conversation.

                  So if MSNBC ran a story saying you were homosexual, with no corroborating evidence other than a link to a story on a gay website that did not say you were gay, you would consider that sufficient evidence to prove that you were homosexual?

                  OK, if you say so.

                  • James of Clan Scott

                    >So if MSNBC ran a story saying you were homosexual, with no corroborating evidence

                    Focus on the topic at hand.

                    Your tangents bore me. Beside I brought out a blog from someone gay who opposes gay marriage. You moved the goal post and said it was one blog. If I produce proof Les Hommen is gay then you will say they are lying or not really gay or “just one group”.

                    Can we have a civilized honest discussion Lutesuite or is this going to be like “talking” to the Geocentrists over at CWR?

                    It’s up to you buddy. I’ll play fair if you do.

              • James of Clan Scott

                additional:

                Something along the lines I was thinking of…..

                Gays against Gay Marriage.

                https://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/gay-marriage-is-a-threat-to-gay-sexual-freedom

                To quote a great man who has recently passed beyond…….Fascinating!

                • Lutesuite

                  Gee. Some guy with a blog. Colour me impressed. Not.

                  Look, I know that line of argument exists within the LGBTQ community. I just fail to see how it is relevant to whether those homosexuals who want to marry should be allowed to. Unless you want the gay community dictating all our laws for us. Do you?

                  • James of Clan Scott

                    Rather is asks gays “Why are we so desperate to be like straight people”?

                    That is relevant to the conversation. You are obsessed with “law”.

                    If a law is unjust change it. But I am not talking “law” except as it directly impacts my liberty. A piece of paper from the state that says “marriage” on it means nothing to me. Only one from the Holy Church means anything to me. I don’t care what the State does I only care what it does to me.

                    Are we clear? Also you only gave me one link at one point. If I provide one you demand two. Stop moving goal posts with these argumentative tricks. I use them all the time.

                    I would rather have a real human conversation man to man.

                    Can you give me that or should I look elsewhere?

                    • Lutesuite

                      If a law is unjust change it. But I am not talking “law” except as it directly impacts my liberty. A piece of paper from the state that says “marriage” on it means nothing to me. Only one from the Holy Church means anything to me. I don’t care what the State does I only care what it does to me.

                      If you’re not arguing against legal recognition of same sex marriage, then I apologize for misunderstanding.

                      I really have no interest one way or the other in the discussion within the gay community over whether homosexuals should marry. So, sorry, but if that’s what you wanted to discuss, I can’t help you out.

                    • James of Clan Scott

                      >If you’re not arguing against legal recognition of same sex marriage, then I apologize for misunderstanding.

                      To be clear I am not in principle against it but I am against civil punishment for adult consensual sex acts.

                      I believe the state should stay out of that & leave it too the Confessional.

                      >I really have no interest one way or the other in the discussion within the gay community over whether homosexuals should marry. So, sorry, but if that’s what you wanted to discuss, I can’t help you out.

                      Peace.

                      I just wanted you to get the chip off your shoulder and I will take the one off mine and in the future no matter the topic we can discuss it like adults.

                      Peace again.

                      PS please disregard anything else I said that was too confrontational.

                    • Lutesuite

                      To be clear I am not in principle against it but I am against civil punishment for adult consensual sex acts.

                      Not sure I understand what you’re saying here.

                    • james of Clan Scott

                      >>To be clear I am not in principle against it but I am against civil punishment for adult consensual sex acts.

                      >Not sure I understand what you’re saying here.

                      To clarify.

                      meaning I don’t care if there are laws against gays “marrying” meaning I don’t care that gays can’t get a little piece of paper from the state with the word “marriage” stamped on it.

                      Of course if they want to have a mock ceremony proclaiming this metaphysical impossibility anyway it’s none of my business. I will just pray for them and leave it at that.

                    • Lutesuite

                      To clarify.

                      meaning I don’t care if there are laws against gays
                      “marrying” meaning I don’t care that gays can’t get a little piece of
                      paper from the state with the word “marriage” stamped on it.

                      Of course if they want to have a mock ceremony proclaiming this metaphysical impossibility anyway it’s none of my business. I will just pray for them and leave it at that.

                      That clarifies nothing.

                      Are you opposed to legal recognition of same sex relationships as marriages?

                    • James of Clan Scott

                      “I don’t care” clearly shows that I am indifferent.

                      I thought that would be obvious.

                    • Lutesuite

                      “I don’t care” clearly shows that I am indifferent.

                      “I don’t care if…” and “I don’t care whether…” have very different meanings in the context in which you were speaking.

                      Anyway, clear now. Thanks.

                    • James of Clan Scott

                      Peace guy.

                      Have a good one.

            • Lutesuite

              I didn’t argue for legally banning it. Thus how could I be making a bad argument for legally banning it if I am not arguing legal at all?

              Ah, so your point was irrelevant to the present discussion. Thanks for wasting my time.

  • Atilla The Possum

    Italian designers Dolce & Gabbana stated that they have always disagreed with Same Sex Marriage and that IVF children from these ”unions” are ‘synthetic’.
    The interesting fact of the matter with the above (taken from a recent interview with an Italian magazine) is that they are both are homosexual.
    The point I’m making with this post is that not all homosexuals agree with the artificially spun widespread notion that all homosexuals etc. agree with these things.
    Elton John has called for people to boycott Dolce & Gabbana goods.
    I won’t – well, I can’t afford the majority of them anyway but their perfumes are pretty good.
    Who does Elton John think he is? Why is he given the oxygen of publicity? He thinks he’s a 21st Century Liberace crossed with Obama Lite, when in fact and reality he is a glorified, fools-gold-plated tea boy who could knock a tune from a piano and got lucky along the way. Someone who has fallen into a pile of compost and come up roses.

    • John200

      Elton John is not a useful source of wisdom. He stands in the pile of compost up to his neck. And he is adding to its contents.

      Rich, famous, still alive in spite of his unhealthy practices, but overall…

      Pitiful. He has blown it all (not a reference to homo”sex”ual activity).

  • Ruth Rocker

    I’ll just go ahead and put on my detestable person label right now and save the trouble. This is insanity in all its glory. Polygamous/polyamorous relationships were as sure to follow the current homomafia stand as night follows day. And it won’t be too long before we told this is all completely Christian as there were men with multiple wives and concubines in the Bible itself. Never mind the fact that Jesus stated definitely what the standard was. And I wouldn’t be too surprised to see pedophilia as the next target of opportunity for change. After all if they love each other . . .

  • chillinout.

    Of course, Thailand doesn’t even recognize 2 partner same sex marriage. This was a RELIGIOUS ceremony. I thought you guys loved religious freedom? Hahaha. It’s seems the goalpost for the heterofascist theocrats is in fact always moving, and the rules are always changing to whatever they feel benefits them most.

    • Kara Connor

      Ah, but theirs was the wrong religion!

      • Bob

        Great point, Kara! You are 100% correct!

        You’re absolutlely right, they’re followoing the wrong religion! Hinduism is a pagan faith, only Christ and His Catholic Church are the “Way, the Truth, the Life!”

        Also, it was endearing that you posted all those faux clinical links trying to justify people are born “gay.” You must be exhausted from Googling! See below an article I googled showing serial murderers have a “murderers gene” and that they are born that way. With enough googling, I can find article showing adulterers, thieves, liars, etc are all born with a gene (similar to your claims for the homosexual and transgender) are all “born that way.” This way we can then give a pass to every psychological disorder out there! Googling enough, I’ll find an article explaining my inner “canine ness!” i personally am a golden retriever that knocks off banks, and I have a genetic basis of proof THAT I WAS BORN THIS WAY!! YEAAA!!:

        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976

        • GG

          Exactly. You can say your were born a “homophobe” so stop hating me. The absurd logic goes in circles.

          • Bob

            Excellent point.

            I can find a clinical study that shows I have a genetic makeup and genes that cause me to find the act of sodomy repulsive and against nature. It’s who I am, how I was made. I was born this way.

            • GG

              Right, then use biased, politically influenced, science to claim your brain size, or hormone/steroid influence causes you to believe what you do.

              We have entered into the domain of the para experts and propagandists. Their god is orgasm and pseudo science.

    • Bob

      I love it when you “gay” guys up vote yourselves!! Adorable!

      And I guess your religion is the worshipping of the male phallus and rectum?? Do you guys have specific holidays for that??

    • GG

      Homofascists are back.

  • Dillon Francis

    The west is dieing yes, but not all parts of the world are. With that said, why aren’t more American traditionalists supporting Russia’s efforts to replace the uni-polar world? This way the USA won’t be dictating the tenets of the leftists to a world which can’t resist because they have no other pole of power to run to.

    • Lutesuite

      Good argument, Dillon Francis! Let’s give Vladimir Putin more power. That’ll work out great for what we now call “The Free World”, won’t it?

      • Dillon Francis

        What free world? It is a poor illusion that you live in a free world. Snowden’s revelations were the final nail in the coffin that the political west is no longer free. But a cultural marxist likely wouldn’t care nor understand.

    • Joe Malik

      Thailand is part of The West now?

  • cestusdei

    More is to come and if you demur you will be punished.

  • Joe Malik

    Monogamy has never been a global standard where marriage is concerned. It has always been regional. Polygamy never stopped. It’s been around somewhere or another continuously for all of human history. If your alleged cause happens after the effect, it’s probably not the cause.

    • GG

      What? It has always been the standard. That deviations happen does not change that.

      • Joe Malik

        It has always been the standard for Christianity, but Christianity has never been in a position for her standards to be globally agreed upon. The standard of a culture that has accepted a deviation from one moral norm is still the standard of that culture, and there have always, for the entirety of human history, been societies that affirmed polygamy, regardless of our opinion on the deviancy of that standard.

        • GG

          No true. One man and one woman has been the standard from the start. You are a mere relativist so the truth is hard for you to grasp.

  • Vinny

    By Anthony G. Attrino | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
    Email the author | Follow on Twitter
    on March 18, 2015 at 10:13 AM, updated March 18, 2015 at 10:34 AM

    0Reddit

    Malcom J. Brenner has gone public with his love affair.

    It’s not just any fling — the 63-year-old from Perth Amboy claims to have fallen in love with a dolphin.

    “My name is Malcom J. Brenner and this is the story of how I fell in love with Dolly the Dolphin,” he says in a trailer for “Dolphin Lover,” a new critically acclaimed, award winning short documentary.

    In 2010, Brenner wrote “Wet Goddess,” a novel about a college student who falls in love with a captive, bottle-nosed dolphin. “Dolphin Lover,” which is based on the book, premiered earlier this year at Utah’s Slamdance Film Festival.

    Brenner claims the book and movie are autobiographical. The affair took place in a Florida amusement park in the 1970s.

    “When I would get in the water, she would approach me, unafraid,” Brenner says in another trailer. “She would solicit attention.”

    He adds:

    “I never fed her. I never gave her any kind of food rewards. Her courtship, as it progressed, got more vigorous and intense. She would rub her genital slit against me. And if I tried to push her away, she would get very angry with me. One time when she wanted to masturbate on my foot and I wouldn’t let her, she threw herself on top of me and pushed me down to the 12-foot bottom of the pool. Those were the tactics that she was trying on me at first.”

    Eventually, Brenner says Dolly eased her game.

    “She might open her jaws and run her teeth very gently along my arm or my leg, which produced an amazingly erotic feeling to me,” he said. “I think (it) was her way of saying to me, ‘Look, I’m very strong, but I’m not going to harm you.'”

    In an interview published in Jezebel last month, Brenner attributed his zoophilia to molestation at the hands of a childhood psychiatrist. Still, he compares zoophilia to interracial dating and hopes society will one day become accepting.

    In a 1997 interview on the Howard Stern radio show, Brenner insisted his relationship with the dolphin was based on more than just sex.

    “It’s definitely making love,” he said. “They are very spiritual sort of animals. They’re very tender. They’re very gentle.”

  • APRODEFA

    The current effort, to make the word marriage into an equivocal is, in essence, an unfortunate corollary of society’s acceptance of contraception and its violation of the procreative aspect of the conjugal act. In 1968, Paul VI in his Encyclical Humanae Vitae ewtn.com/library/encyc/p6human… accurately prophesied the negative consequences for marriage of the use of contraception. As predicted, resistance to anti-life practices such as abortion, divorce, euthanasia and pornography has gradually crumpled. Those who accept these anti-life practices have, in effect, acceded to the privileging of unnatural, non-marital relations and to the further trivialization of marriage. The legalization of polyamory merely codifies and further legitimizes the injustices that children are already enduring. These include:

    1. Violation of the right to human life — artificial reproduction techniques such as IVF entail selective abortion.

    2. Forced orphanization — a logical side effect of artificial reproduction and surrogacy.

    3. A reduction lifespan of up to 5 years — a well-documented effect of divorce.

    4. Stress imposed by multiple non-biological parents in unstable and transient relationships.

    Many heterosexual parents have selfishly placed their so called “rights” above the collateral damage to their children, whom they often treat as mere accessories.

    It has been a serious error to ignore these atrocities for which the heterosexual community is largely responsible. If this madness is to be reversed, all of these antilife practices must be proscribed.

  • APRODEFA

    =>“The first, ironically, came from a Puerto Rican man named Elijah, who is indeed a prophet for our times.”

    This really does not surprise me. The government of Puerto Rico recently
    tried to legalize bestiality and incest among other atrocities.

  • The Truth

    The bottom line is all of this insanity is how do we define love? Non-believers see “love” as whatever makes you “feel” good. It has nothing to do with agape love. It’s pure lust and perversion. Heterosexuals fall into the same trap. Equating sexual gratification as love.

MENU