Name-Calling: The Favored Weapon of Gay Marriage Supporters

I grew up in an Italian neighborhood, so my first understanding of bigotry was that it referred to a very large tree (“Hey, dat’s a big-a tree!”). Now, many years later, I know that it really means supporting traditional marriage. Like President Obama, I have “evolved.” I have advanced on the semantic spectrum from being ethnicized to being politicized. Who needs Noah Webster?

William A. Jacobson is an Associate Clinical Professor at the Cornell University Law School. The sesquipedalian title of the statement he posted on July 29, 2012 encapsulates its essence: “Most important legacy of Obama’s gay marriage switch was freeing Dems to play the ‘bigot card’.” Now, according to Jacobson, Democrats are free to accuse anyone and everyone who supports the traditional understanding of marriage as bigoted. Those who thus stand accused would be nearly everyone in history together with the vast majority of the living. Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, and the Ku Klux Klan would all be tarred by the same brush. And, since the accusers are also being accused of the same abnormality, the number of bigots is now virtually equal to the number of rational bipeds. This sweeping accusation, simply from a logical point of view, should be most disheartening to those who fancy themselves democrats.

The problem of labeling defenders of traditional marriage as “bigots” has reached near epidemic proportions. Various websites from The Ruth Institute (Aug. 5, 2012) to the Huffington Post (May 11, 2012) report how common this practice has become. Meanwhile, in the London Telegraph, Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, finds that the accusers are projecting their own bigotry onto the innocent: “People who oppose gay marriage are being treated like homophobes and bigots by those who call for tolerance.” He goes on to suggest that it seems that it is the accusers themselves who personify the venom they spew at their innocent targets.

Jimmy Akin, writing for the National Catholic Register (July 26, 2012) illustrates how easy it is to be called a bigot. In his case, it was simply because he dared to say that being against same-sex marriage does not mean that one is against people who have a same-sex orientation. Is one also a “bigot” for opposing marriage between a mother and her daughter? “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Can there ever be harmony in the modern Tower of Babel? The word “babble,” denoting noise or a confusion of different sounds, has its roots in the Biblical story. The Humpty Dumpties of the world are babblers, not builders.

We wonder whether language is still serviceable. “Never,” Aldous Huxley once remarked, “have misused words—those hideously efficient tools of all the tyrants, warmongers, persecutors and heresy hunters—been so widely and disastrously influential.” What would he say if he were alive today to observe the way words are currently misused? He would need to amp up his rhetoric considerably, even though amplification and communication do not necessarily go hand in hand.

The word “bigot” is now routinely used, not to convey meaning, but as a kind of verbal slap in the face, as an expletive rather than as an argument. It signals the end of discourse and an invitation to violence. Demonizing supporters of marriage between a man and a woman does not change minds or hearts; it simply terminates dialogue and welcomes vandalism and warfare.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, that quintessential American essayist, went so far as to suggest that bad rhetoric made bad men. He may be in good company. In Matthew 12:36 we read: “Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” According to Confucius, “If language is incorrect, then what is said is not meant. If what is said is not meant, then what ought to be done remains undone.” Former United Nations Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld had this to say: “To misuse words is to show contempt for man. It undermines the bridges and poisons the wells.  It causes Man to regress down the long path of his evolution.”

We will be judged for our words, as well as for our deeds. On second thought, the politicization of words (and consequently, thoughts) truly is regressive, bringing Homo sapiens back to the time when grunts preceded words, and violence antedated rational communication.

Now where did I put my Webster’s dictionary?

This column first appeared August 24, 2012 on and is reprinted with permission.

Donald DeMarco


Donald DeMarco, Ph.D., is a Senior Fellow of Human Life International who writes for the St. Austin Review and the Truth and Charity Forum. He is Professor Emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario and adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, CT.

  • givelifeachance2

    Deployment of the word “bigot” by sodomites is classic projection.  One dictionary puts it ”
    a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion”.  In fact, homosexuals are utterly intolerant of the opposite sex in marriage (to the great detriment of the children they choose to import).  So if they use it frequently enough against those who are insisting on the importance of a true representation of the sexes in marriage, maybe people will tire of hearing the word and it won’t have weight when it is correctly applied.

    • Givelifeachance2: You just name-called. You called homosexuals “sodomites.” You have characterized an entire class of people by the name of a sex act that is performed by virtually all classes of people everywhere. This is the way prejudice works.

      • Dmikem

        Frank Lozera, this is still off point, the entire class of homosexuals who are in same-sex relationships are engaged in deviant and disordered behavior for the 4 reasons I outlined in my earlier post.

        • Dmikem, you have asked me to address your four points from an earlier comment. Here’s #1, and the others will follow:

          #1: Science. All the major health and social care associations in this country, without exception, have concluded that (1)homosexuality is not a disorder, and (2) same-sex parenting poses no inherent risks to children. Most of these organizations–including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychoanalytic Association–have jointly filed an amicus brief arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act stigmatizes gays and lesbians and should be overturned. The Regnerus study is cited in this brief as an example of seriously flawed research on same-sex parenting. Their conclusion: “…children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents.”
          The American Sociological Association has been very concerned about the Regnerus study and was considering action at its recent convention. I’m not sure what the outcome was, yet.

          • Dmikem

            Frank Lozera,
            Sorry but your arguments are not fact based. I never claimed that homosexuality was a disorder, I said it is not normative and is disordered. With respect to your claims that research shows there is no difference between children raised in a nuclear family compared to same-sex parent family is simply not true. There are many studies that have concluded that the most best environment to raise a child is in a nuclear family. Also your claim that the Regenerus study is seriously flawed is not supported by the facts. The University has defended him and dismissed the complaint as unfounded and other research groups have accepted the structure, content and findings of his study.

            So what that the several several groups have filed amicus briefs against DOMA. Dozens of organizations including 15 states, the Liberty Counsel and 60 Democratic Congressmen and the majority of GOP Congressmen have refused to sign the anti-DOMA declaration. This is a fight and as far as I’m concerned homosexuals should never be allowed to get ‘married’, it will ruin the institution to satisfy a minority group that is not normative.

            I really don’t care what the psychologists think…you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that the elimination of a male or female parent is detrimental to a childs upbringing.

        • Dmikem, here are the rest of my responses to your points:

          2. Biology: Biological organisms were not designed; they evolved, and homosexuality was one of the results of that evolution. You’ve perhaps heard about male penguins that mate for life? As for species furtherance, I wouldn’t worry. The earth’s population has more than doubled since I was born.
          3. Common sense: Your argument is circular, and your terms are highly subjective. You’re saying that right-thinking people are people who exercise common sense, and common sense is what right-thinking people exercise. I consider myself to use common sense and to be a right-thinking person, but I disagree with you.
          4. Biblical: The Bible has no authority with many people in this country, and there is no religious test for citizenship. The “biblical” argument is irrelevant. I myself look to science for guidance on matters like these, and the scientific consensus is very clear.

          • Dmikem

            Frank Lozera……Biology is a science….it is a fact that procreation requires the union of a male to female. You can dance all you want but you can’t change the facts. As for evolution… is an unproven ‘Theory’. Even if evolution was fact it would seem nature evolved in a way supporting the union between male and female……not same-sex unions. I’m not sure what Penguins hae to do with the discussion. Many animals display homosexual type activities but all return to the female for reproduction…it is called instinct.
            You common sense argument gave me a laugh… about circular. What I am saying is that homosexuals have always been and always will be a small percentage of the population. Common sense would instruct right thinking people that based upon ‘evolution’ e.g. the science of biology that natures design does not fit homosexual relationships hence they are not normative.
            If you want to check the statistics, unlike yourself, about 90% of the U.S. population believe in God. Agnostics, Atheists, Gnostics etc. are about 10% so the Bible does matter. This is a Catholic website…..I’m sorry you don’t believe but that is your problem, not mine. As for scientific consensus….on what?

          • IceWhisper Flux

            Hm… do you refer to the very same animal nature that, in general (not just penguins), has an common and natural habit of eating their own young/kind, killing others, “raping”, and “torturing”? Those are rather common in the human species as well, but why do we fight against those things? Clearly, according to you, we have plenty of people on this earth to continue and I highly doubt there will be enough murder/harm to stop the human population (do you disagree?). Sure, most people believe that rape and murder are wrong, but why? What makes it all of the sudden “wrong”? Surely that would not stop “evolution” from occurring in the human species just as it has not stopped the various other animal species on this planet. Clearly there must be something “wrong” with believing/knowing that rape/murder are “wrong” because not everyone agrees otherwise neither of those things would exist. Why would they automatically be wrong? Who says they are? Me? You? The government? Some other group or person? I would assume you do not think yourself perfect nor anyone else so makes you “right” in certain regards and me “wrong”? And yet you would find that certain other human beings (say, scientists who believe in evolution) are automatically correct in their assumptions or findings, but whom or what else could you refer to in order to see if such people are incorrect? It happens all the time, even the age of the earth has varied from around a million to the now billions of years, scientists were pretty sure at one point that the earth was only a few millions years old. I would say science is right, but the people are what can and most certainly will be: wrong.

            If you are willing to use animal instinct/actions as a reason to allow certain things, do not forget to look at everything else they do, otherwise while it “might” look like you understand and look kinda intellectual, I do not see how you can successfully disagree with me if I say that murder is okay since animals do it (same for cannibalism, etc) if they also perform homosexual actions. If you do agree with me (I have seen people who would say there is “nothing wrong with rape or murder”)… oh boy…

            As a little side note… interesting that you say the Bible has no authority when most people use it for their moral guidance (murder, rape, etc are wrong) and while you can say that it is somehow “build in the human race” or something (yet, I do wonder where “intelligence” was before the “big bang”… scientifically speaking, if I am thinking of a happy purple cloud, there is no way to prove it, in fact, the thought should not actually exist, if that makes sense) the problem with that is there is no real “reason” for such “guidance” (where did this guidance come from anyway… clearly not everyone believes in a god that created everything) since animals have little use for it when needing food and humans ourselves vary in whom has this “moral guidance” and whom does not, otherwise we would, again, have “no” murder or rape. If we are supposedly so “far evolved”.

            Yes, the scientific consensus is quite clear in that animals largely seem to have no problem killing one another for food, not all species have one life-partner (many appear quite promiscuous and males will have “harems”, if you will), and varies other things that most people find “wrong” or displeasing.

            Are animals, yourself, and other people really who/what you want to use as what you deem right or wrong? This is why I believe in the Biblical God whom created Jesus Christ to die and rise again for my sins and the sins of everyone. My feelings often times go contrary to certain Biblical teachings, I have wanted to hit people, gossip, have pre-marital sex, etcetera, but I use His guidance for what is right and wrong. When I do things that are contrary, that is why I repent and ask for forgiveness. Making my own decisions on things is what makes things go wrong and what has caused others to do wrong such as when people claim God “told” them to kill (despite the Biblical teachings that it is wrong and that God no longer tells us to do such things) and that pre-marital sex is okay since both people felt “in-love”.

  • Pingback: Name-Calling: The Favored Weapon of Gay Marriage Supporters | Catholic Canada()

  • Dmikem

    Excellent post. The LGBT people have marginalized themselves because they all (like the atheists) must resort to hyperbole, namecalling, insults, ridicule etc. because they lack valid arguments:
    1. Science – Mark Regnerus’s Gay Parent Study (University of Texas) reported that children of same sex couples don’t fare as well in life as do children reared by married male-female parents.
    2. Biology – It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the design of all creatures calls for male-female relationships to further the species.
    3. Common sense – Right thinking people do not recognize homosexual relationships as normative because they are not.
    4. Biblical – Genesis 1:27 says, “And God created man to his own image: to the image of God
    he created him: male and female he created them.”
    Homosexuals are trying everything in the book to be accepted by society but it will never really happen for the reasons stated above. So when science, biology, common sense and religion are against you what do you do? Scream discrimination, name call, rant etc.
    Perfectly clear…….

    • Givelifeachance2, you generalized from particular cases to general classes when you said that LGBT people “all” resort to hyperbole, namecalling, insults, and ridicule. In one of your other comments, you called homosexuals “sodomites.” See my reply to that comment.

      • Dmikem

        Frank Lozera,
        I’m not sure where you are coming from. Clearly the LGBT movements use hyperbole, namecalling, insults and ridicule liberally against anyone to opposes their views. Oh, and they also label anyone opposed to homosexual marriage or other LGBT agendas as ‘haters’. With respect to homosexuals being called ‘sodomites’….they are by the definition of the word. I’m sorry you don’t like it but it is fact. The definition of sodomy is, “anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.”

        • Dmikem, sodomy is practiced by both heterosexuals and homosexuals the world over. Many heterosexuals have never practiced it, and many homosexuals have never done so, either. The word “sodomite” does not mean “homosexual” any more than it means “heterosexual.”

          Certainly, many gay and lesbian people do use hyperbole and insult, but so do many straight Catholics, as I pointed out yesterday on this blog. Please take time to read Dough Remy’s list of epithets and insults that were hurled at him by people like Alecto. I posted it about a day ago.

          Homosexuals do not have the franchise on uncivil language. It’s unfair to judge all Christians by what some of them do or say. Heterosexuals who occasionally use hyperbole and insult should not be denied the right to marry. In other words, let’s address the issues, not the excesses of their proponents.

        • Dmikem: You wrote that the definition of sodomy is “anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.” Read that again carefully.

          • Dmikem

            I did read my on-going reply.
            The definition of sodomy is:
            sod·om·y [sod-uh-mee]   /ˈsɒdəmi/ Show Spelled[sod-uh-mee]
            1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. 2. copulation with a member of the same sex. 3.bestiality ( def. 4 ).

            • So then, why would you refer to homosexuals, not heterosexuals, as “sodomites?” Have you read any studies showing the relative occurrence of sodomy among heterosexuals vs. homosexuals (including lesbians, of course)? Why would you want to describe an entire class of people with a word that refers to a sex act that some of them practice? It is extremely derogatory.

              • Dmikem

                Frank Lozera,
                It was not me that referred to homosexuals as sodomites. I laid out my thoughts and beliefs about homosexual relationships (not homosexuals per se). I have described homosexual relationships as not normative, disordered and deviant but have not referred to them as sodomites.

      • Dmikem

        Sorry, I hit send accidentally. Whether both heterosexuals and homosexuals engage in these practices is not relevant to the discussion. The issue is the use of prejoratives against anyone who opposes the LGBT agenda.

  • Pingback: Ratzinger Schülerkreis Cardinal Dolan Cardinal Martini | Big Pulpit()

  • Alecto

    While I was attending graduate school back in the early 1990s, we had more than one incident involving the LGBT agenda, which was aggressive, radical, hateful and yes, violent even then – utilizing dirty and dishonest tactics. I remember several brave students standing up for “traditional” values and being forced out of school. That became commonplace. When we looked for advice and guidance our local priest and bishop were bBefuddled and bewildered, they offered no help, treating us as though we were asking for advice on building a particle accelerator in our basements.

    These incidents were increasing in frequency on US campuses even then, nearly 20 years ago! Why are the Catholic intelligentsia and hierarchy so late to this party? The hierarchy is ill-equipped to deal with this foe, seemingly afraid to get a little mud on their pristine albs. Yet it consistently castigates anyone who wishes to take on the opponent in any meaningful fight and I do mean fight. Watching the effete bishops at their last conference I laughed out loud. They’re so afraid of offending ANYONE, they don’t notice they are being sidelined, targeted for destruction. Make no mistake about it, this is not about tolerance, this is about war, destruction and obliteration of Catholic/Christian ideals and values. There is no middle ground when you’re facing extinction. Speaking truth to power in the Obama Administration? What a joke! That power is about to ensure American Catholics don’t survive. At least let those of us who know how to fight, fight. And you won’t win with columns, initiatives or outreaches. It’s like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

    • Sue

      BRAVO! Well-said, Alecto.

      • Sue, you are encouraging Alecto for using violent metaphors? (see my comment to him) So you apparently disagree with the author of the article that we need more civility in our discourse?

    • Alecto, when you say the LGBT “agenda” was aggressive, radical, hateful, and violent, do you mean that the LGBT individuals behaved in those ways? Or was it just their “agenda”? Do you know what “the gay agenda” is?

      I thought the writer of this article was urging civility and restraint, and yet you write, “This is about war,” and “there is no middle ground,” and you use violent metaphors involving guns and knives.

      The irony is that you accused the “gay agenda” of being aggressive and violent. Why am I, a homosexual, calling you on this? Your fellow straight Catholic bloggers should have called you out for it, but they have been completely silent. Am I to conclude that they are not disturbed by your language?

      • Alecto

        Gays are violent, physically, verbally, not simply to those who disagree with them, but with each other as well. I have known gays for decades who are regularly beaten up by their “lovers”. During the NY battle over gay marriage, homosexuals stood outside of Catholic churches assaulting Catholics trying to enter; they spit on Catholic advocates in Washington DC who simply wanted to discuss gay marriage (that’s direct evidence); invaded Catholic churches to desecrate the Eucharist?

        How DARE YOU accuse ME of violent rhetoric, when gays in this country have used the most reprehensible disgusting tactics including publishing addresses and names of Prop 8 supporters and donors in California? People whose kids were called names, and were the subject of death threats? Publishing some of the most vile anti-Catholic essays, blogs and articles. Use of words like “bigot”, “hater” don’t phase me, Mr. I have heard it all, and believe me, one day you will need to reckon for your lies, your hatred and your perversion, which is deep and incurable.

        • Seems like your outrage knows no bounds. Personally, I am more a follower of Jesus and Gandhi in that I believe the best first step in combatting violence is to abjure it.

          I also know of many heterosexuals who have abused their spouses, made death threats (e.g., at abortion clinics), bullied gay children, etc. Heterosexuals have a pretty sorry record. Just look at the magazine rack in your nearby supermarket. Or look through your daily newspaper. It’s pretty gruesome.

          But it would never have occurred to me to conclude that heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry or that they should be stigmatized in any way as a class. Imagine punishing all heterosexuals because certain ones have beat their wives. Would you do that?

          Peace be with you.

          • Alecto

            Jesus Christ told his disciples, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Homosexuality is a grave mortal sin. Therefore, how can you say you follow Jesus Christ? His mercy is everlasting and real for those who avail themselves of it. Repent and you shall be saved.

            • Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality. He did say to turn the other cheek, to sell all you have and give it to the poor (if you want to get into heaven), and to treat others as you would like to be treated.

              Did you know that accumulating excessive wealth is also a “grave mortal sin” according to the Catholic church’s recent additions to the list of cardinal sins? Do you know a presidential candidate who might be guilty of such a sin?

              • Pamela

                Jesus did say something about it.
                He said something by its absence, when He spoke of marriage. He said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.” The two sexes were made for each other, not to reject each other in favor of same sex romantic/sexual partners.
                While that may not be explicit enough for you, He also said one of the more important things that people chose to ignore. He said to Peter, “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou
                shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou
                shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” And Peter wrote, “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, to refrain yourselves
                from carnal desires which war against the soul.” Peter, as a Jew would have understood that homosexual practice was a sin against the laws of God, as it was very plain in the Scripture he would have been taught. Peter never loosed the teaching that lieing with man as with woman was an ‘abomination’.
                Peter also wrote, “…; as also our most dear
                brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his
                epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to
                be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other
                scriptures, to their own destruction.” And Paul was quite clear in his epistles of the sin of homosexual practice. That last part is also very pertinent.
                When He was preparing them for when He was to be delivered up, Jesus also told the apostles, “I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.”
                And He said, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” With these promises and instructions, from the beginning to today, the Church has always held bound and taught the sinfulness of homosexual practice.
                So, Jesus did have something to say on the matter, even if it was not written out specifically using the word homosexual in the writings included in The Bible.
                As to candidates who have accumulated excess wealth, I can name more than one, since both leading candidates are multi-millionaires. Curious that only one of them gives more than 10% of his wealth voluntarily to charity, though, isn’t it? Our choices are between two fallen, sinful men, as we all are. However, one is guilty of advocating the discarding of fully born human beings as evidenced by his voting against the BAIPA more than once. While the other is not close to solidly pro-life historically, he at least claims to have seen the error of his ways, while the other is doubling down on his embrace of unfettered abortion on demand, strips the members of the Church of their First Amendment rights to the free exercise of their faith by forcing them to provide sinful contraception/abortion inducing drugs, as well as supporting homosexual ‘marriage’ which has already resulted in the fining of Christians who refuse to accomodate the sinful practice. And to be clear, all sin is not equal, as Jesus made plain when He said, “…he that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin.”
                I hope you find peace, which can only be found in Christ.
                “If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my
                Father’s commandments, and do abide in his love.”

              • uninformedLuddite

                He said to turn the other cheek not to offer your butt cheek

              • IceWhisper Flux

                He also said nothing about bestiality, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, etcetera. Does that mean we can make our own rules about them too? What about rape or murder? Clearly not everyone disagrees with rape and murder otherwise neither one would exist, why discriminate against them despite “knowing” that they are “wrong” in what they do? To them it must feel quite normal and give them much relief, yet they continuously are discriminated against which can cause more “bad actions” from them. Why not legalize those things to make them happy too?
                Discrimination is not always a bad thing.

                Yet, Jesus does talk about the union between one man and one woman, which is the definition of a marriage and since that is the only definition then it does mean that two men, two women, a person and animal, etc. cannot be “married”.

                Also, that is the Catholic church you speak of, not the written Word of God’s list of “grave mortal sins”. Interesting that you put the example of “mortal people who made a mortal decision to say that something was a mortal sin even though it does not necessarily say so Biblically”. In other words, yes, accumulating wealth out of greed and without purpose would be sinful (Kinda like treating money as a “god”.), but having lots of wealth does not mean it HAS to be sinful, it is just what people end up doing with it.

                Marriage (by God’s definition: the union between one man and one woman) is by nature meant to be a wonderful and joyous thing, yet a/both partners may end up cheating and/or harming one another, which IS against the Biblical Word of God (the woman must obey and love her husband AND the man must love and respect his wife, etc).
                Marriage is good, but clearly no two-men/two-woman unions can have a wife supporting her husband and a husband supporting his wife. It requires those of opposing sex.

            • Tyler

              Jesus also said not to judge others, because to do so would justify being judged right back. But then again…Jesus said a lot of things. Isn’t it just so convenient of you to only use what Jesus had to teach when said teaching will specifically benefit you and not others. That doesn’t seem to have been Jesus’ intention at all, but that’s just my opinion. Technically-speaking, if you’re gonna use the Bible as our “authority” on such matters like homosexuality, you should also be wasting your time to campaign for the reestablishment of slavery, and re-taking away women’s rights in order to reduce them to the value of private property…you know, like in the Bible. Jesus and myriad other prophets and the like had a great deal to say on things that, by today’s standards, are considerably barbaric. For example, if a virgin (unmarried) woman is raped, according to Biblical law, she will be forced to marry her rapist (if she’s not a virgin, no one else will ever marry her), and the rapist has to pay a fine to the rape-victim’s family to pay for the damage he did to their “property” (the raped woman). Sounds like fun. No…I think I’d rather not listen to your justifications for anti-Gay rights based on Bible-teachings. To do so would be the equivalent of being reduced to actually take into advisement and consideration the ravings of a madman. I understand that their are other arguments (good & bad) other than Bible scripture, but you would be deluded to think that preventing homosexuals from marrying is an offense because the Bible said so. Like I said, if homosexuality is an abomination and must be stopped because the Bible said so (you might argue that the Bible is an infallible authority on everything, and must be used in law), then accordingly you must also argue for slavery, and denying women any/all rights and liberties (they are the property of their husbands/fathers). Among other things I’d rather not think about, that are enforced by Biblical writings.

        • DN

          You make a great number of claims, and proffer *zero* evidence. Why should anyone pay attention to your assertions?

      • Alecto

        One more thing, since you obviously are a public school graduate: read up on mythology. Alecto is one of the Furies, three sisters who torment evildoers and sinners in the Greek underworld.

        You just got yourself outed as a misogynist.

        • So anyone who disagrees with you is a misogynist because you’ve taken the name “Alecto?” Sounds like you’re invincible!

          • Alecto

            No more than you are a provocateur visiting sites posting inflammatory nonsense to stir up the pot, right Frank?

  • JP

    And when day, when all of the Christians have been disposed of, the Muslims and gays can then fight over the scraps of what remains of culture. It will be then that gays will find out what the word intolerant means.

  • Perhaps we should then adopt the term “bigot” as a badge of honor? There are many historical precedents – Quakers, Methodists, Whigs, Tories, not to mention the queers…8)

    • thisoldspouse

      Good point. Christians actually were willing to adopt the appellation “atheists” in the Roman Empire because the Romans contrued their lack of any symbols or idols as a sign of godlessness. Chuch patriarch Polycarp was bidden to say, “death to the atheists” while facing death in the Coliseum, which he willingly did.

    • Yes, that might be a good strategy.

  • More and more I’m in favour of teaching etymology to children. I was set upon (verbally) a month ago, at a friend’s wedding of all places, for being Catholic. It was genuinely no more sophisticated than that. One of my interrogators, who I didn’t know, asked if I’d ever questioned my faith, to which I responded, “Of course, but there’s a difference between questioning and doubting…” At this point, the whole thing broke down, and she refused to listen to any else I had to say. If we can’t even agree on what words mean, the future is bleak.

    Dr. DeMarco wonders whether “language is still serviceable.” My answer is a firm, “No”. I can only hope this incessant ‘babble’ is paving the way for a monastic (cf. ‘contemplative’) revival here in England, such as is hoped for by Fr. Aidan Nichols OP. When words lose their meaning, silence may be the only solution.

  • Pingback: Name-Calling: The Favored Weapon of "Gay Marriage" Supporters « We Win They LoseWe Win They Lose()

  • I can understand why they would be so angry. They are told their families don’t count, don’t matter, that they do not have a right to a family of their choice. If someone told you that they “disagreed” or “disapproved” of YOUR marriage you’d be pretty angry too.

    • Anna

      Sandy, who has told them that they don’t count or don’t have rights? They have every right to do whatever they please and live however they choose to live. No one is stopping them. They can even have civil unions. But this is not what they seek. What they really seek is acceptance in the eyes of the church, and ultimately from God Himself. And this will never happen since we cannot change the words that have been inspired by God and written in Scripture. They need to take their personal issues up with Jesus and pick up their crosses and carry them instead of trying to place them on everyone else in society.

      • Anna, you write that “they [homosexuals] have every right to do whatever they please.” That’s not quite true. In many places, we (homosexuals) may not marry each other. As for acceptance in the eyes of the church, my partner and I already have that, as we are Unitarians. What we would like is equal treatment under the law. I think we have “borne the cross” for long enough. We’re now putting it down.

        • Kenneth

          That’s because marriage is not possible between people of the same sex. Homosexuals have had and currently do have the same rights as everyone else. Want to marry, find someone in which a marriage is possible.

          • Marriage between same-sex individuals is not only possible but actual. Ten countries and six U.S. states allow same-sex marriage. And no, homosexuals do not have the same rights as everyone else.

            If homosexuals ruled the world and decided that the only possible form of marriage was the same-sex kind, how would you feel if someone said to you: “Find someone with whom a marriage is possible.” (I.e., find a male partner or don’t marry.) Wouldn’t that be kind of creepy?

        • Dmikem

          Frank Lozera, you are not in the traditional sense of the word. If the legal definition of marriage is obliterated to satisfy homosexuals it will also obliterate the family and open the door to unthinkable abuse. Recently in the Netherlands three people married (a form of polygamy). Canada groups are arguing that polygamy be legalized. Elsewhere people want to marry their horse or car….it’s beyond absurd.
          The problems for homosexuals is that regardless of what the law ultimately says…..society will never view homosexual couples equal to heterosexual couples.

          • Dmikem, the scenario you describe is a myth, a figment of your imagination. People want to marry their horse or car? Can you offer any details about this? And can you show that the number of people wanting polygamous unions has increased since same-sex marriage began to be legalized?

            Homosexuals have no intention of “obliterating” the family. Many of us want to make families together. Monogamous marriage is pro-family, not anti-family. For some reason, I think you’ve gotten things backwards.

            • Dmikem

              Frank Lozera,
              Myth my foot… There are not dozens of examples of nutty people wanting to marry their pets, inanimate objects etc. Check it out:


              Recently three people married in the Netherlands. The incidence of non-Mormon people/groups wanting to engage in polygamy has increased everywhere. This is no myth…do a little research.

              Homosexual marriage will indeed obliterate traditional marriage just as same-sex families (can’t be biological parents) will negatively impact the view of family.

              With respect to Homosexual Marriage it may not be the objective of gays to obliterate traditional marriage but obliteration will be one of the unintended consequences. Once the traditional definition of marriage is destroyed all bets are off.

              With respect to same-sex families; there are all kinds of scientific studies that state definitively that the best place for a child to be raised is in a nuclear family setting. Very recently a gay activist Scott Rose accused Dr. Mark Regnerus over the results of his study on the longterm effect on children raised in same-sex families. The study found some significant disadvantages: “The study asked thousands of adult children of straight, lesbian and homosexual parents dozens of questions and compared the results. While many questions did not produce statistically-significant differences, the study found major differences in a few categories. Adult children of gay couples were two to four times as likely to be on public assistance, more than twice as likely to be unemployed and more than twice as likely to have contemplated suicide.” You can read the whole article by following the link:

              Read more:

              I agree that monogamous is pro-family so long as the parents are male-female.

              Homosexual marriage and homosexual families are not normative.

              • Dmikem, you are quoting Divided States and Fox News to me? Why don’t you just get your information from the National Inquirer? You can pick it up right next to the check-out counter in your grocery store.

                You have not shown that there is any trend toward marriage with pets or with multiple partners, etc. All you were able to come up with were anomalies and idiosyncracies, not credible movements. These claims about the sky falling on traditional marriage are completely mythical and similar in every respect to the exaggerated claims made by anti-Semites before and during WWII in Europe. People believed those claims then, and they’re believing similar ones now.

                The Regnerus study that you cite was seriously flawed and has been denounced by every major medical and social care association in the U.S. except the American Sociological Association, which will shortly issue a statement if they have not already done so. The flaws were in both the procedure, which involved major conflicts of interest, and in the methodology.

                • Dmikem

                  Frank Lozera,
                  Is it possible you don’t like FOX News and other media sources because they don’t tow the LGBT line? FOX news has been the number 1 cable news outlet for well over 10 years….CNN and MSNBC combined don’t even come close. In addition the audience for FOX is mixed…..liberal, conservative and independent. Can’t say that for CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC who admit to a liberal bias.
                  You need to do your own research regarding the consequences of redefining marriage. It’s there in spades and it’s alread started based upon the citations given. What in the world do you think will happen. You claim to be a right-thinking person…..
                  Once again there are just as many organizatons that accept the Regenerus study and it has been soundly defended by the University. The studies on the the best environment for a child to be reared in are sound and have concluded it is in a nuclear family….all else is inferior.

                  • Dmikem, the study’s publishers appointed one of their own editorial board members to do an audit of the study, and he found that it was scientifically invalid. And there are NO reputable health and social care associations supporting the study. In fact, every single one of them, except the American Sociological Association, has come out against it, and they are due to do so soon.

                    • Dmikem

                      Frank Lozera,
                      I think we already had this discussion. Many prominents social-scientists, the Baylor University, Texas University and many other sources have authenticated the study for example:
                      Research endorsed by the Federal Government and many other groups have come to the same conclusions as did Dr. Regnerus. The nuclear family is the best possible environment to raise a child…that is a family with two biological parents, the Regnerus study is just more confirmation. See the following link. In this study is says:
                      “First, research clearly demonstrates that familystructure matters for children, and the family structure
                      that helps children the most is a family headed
                      by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
                      Children in single-parent families, children born to
                      unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or
                      cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor
                      outcomes than do children in intact families headedby two biological parents. Parental divorce is alsolinked to a range of poorer academic and behavioraloutcomes among children. There is thus value forchildren in promoting strong, stable marriagesbetween biological parents.”You cannot win this argument because your position starts on a false premise. God, nature or evolution (take you pick) all agree…….it takes a male and female to reproduce; homosexual relationships are unsustainable for this reason.
                      structure matters for children, and the family structure

                      that helps children the most is a family headed

                      by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.

                      Children in single-parent families, children born to

                      unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or

                      cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor

                      outcomes than do children in intact families headed
                      by two biological parents. Parental divorce is also
                      linked to a range of poorer academic and behavioral
                      outcomes among children. There is thus value for
                      children in promoting strong, stable marriages
                      between biological parents.”
                      You cannot win this argument because your position starts on a false premise. God, nature or evolution (take you pick) all agree…….it takes a male and female to reproduce; homosexual relationships are unsustainable for this reason.

                    • It couldn’t possibly be that said “reputable health and social care associations” are in the pocket of the LGTB activists? Nahhh…..

                  • :D

                    It has statistically been proven that the average I.Q. of FOX News viewers is 80. The accepted average (if I’m not mistaken) is 100 I.Q. I don’t know about you, but that’s really sad for all of those troubled FOX News viewers (and also really hilarious).

                    • Dmikem


                      Yo…I bet you think your funny. I really didn’t see any statistical proof that supports your argument but then I’m betting it would come from Huffpo or MSNBC.

                      You see people that want to know what is happening watch all the news stations including MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC AND FOX. Then they make an informed decision. But then you probably think you’re so smart that you know everything. Well then, perhaps you can explain why FOX ratings crush all of these liberal stations combined year after year after year.

                      I enjoy letting the air out of a puffer fish…how does it feel? 🙂

                    • :D

                      It is funny. 😀 And I don’t think I know everything, if I did I don’t know I do. Therein lies the problem.

                    • Tyler

                      Puffer fish aren’t filled with air to my knowledge. I’m almost certain I don’t know everything, because if I did I would know about it. I’m afraid I can’t prove what I said because, admittedly, it is based on hearsay. I do find it rather odd that someone so deeply opinionated as yourself would be concerned about the facts though. 😀 It’s rather ironic. Tell me, are you one of those Catholics that believe rape is an act of God. Because if you are, I would like to receive some statistical proof that that is so. And I’m just curious as to why a flawless, omnipotent, sky wizard would create worldwide populations of people that many Catholics only now admit are naturally homosexual, and that only their acting on this inner nature is wrong. Why would God create and also forbid homosexuality. I’m just a little curious as to how/why many Catholics (such as, presumably, yourself) might come to these purely subjective conclusions (a barely educated series of conjectures, really) about this aspect of homosexuality and just how it can fit into your religion’s cosmology without making the God (whom you cannot undeniably or irrefutably prove exists at all) seem like a confused, paradoxically governing, and self-contradictory Lord of the Universe. Seems a little like what you say is less “God’s will”, and more “whatever I say or believe in about homosexuals, God must believe also”. I cannot help but question, not your beliefs, but the manner in which you insist that what you believe refutes or renders false any other person’s beliefs or perspectives on things. You may not agree with them, and they may not agree with you, but my question is, how can YOU be sure you are correct. You cannot “prove” that you are correct simply because you state the opposing side is wrong, and reciting counteractive statistical facts to back your view up and be proven anymore than the other side might by doing the same. Absolute correctitude requires absolute facts, not just opinions, and fluff statistics that must be interpreted before they can demonstrate a preference to a side in the argument. But I digress. Any thoughts? I am not trying to offend you (or anyone), and I apologize for my unfunny joke, now realizing that it can and did offend.

                    • Tyler

                      I apologize also for the “sky wizard” remark. I was (in rather unfunny fashion) referring to the rather anthropic conception of G-d. (Just a little to anthropomorphized for my theological taste).

                    • Dmikem


                      Actually the puffer fish, one of the most poison creatures on earth, do blow themselves up with water and air as a defense mechanism. I used it as a metaphor to say suggest that your view were both poison and infalted.

                      I have to say though that I am impressed by our response for both it’s honesty and earnest opinions. Below I will respond without sarcasm:

                      1. I don’t consider myself opinionated anymore that your are. We are simply defending our beliefs. I would like to believe that I would speak out to defend my believes just like anyone else. Because you hole the beliefs that you do…does that make you opinionated?

                      2. With respect to rape…I don’t know a single Catholic or moral person that thinks rape is anything but a criminal offense of the lowest order. There is no statistical data that would suggest that Catholics or anyone else see otherwise. The idea that you think Catholics believe such junk is telling.

                      3. Homosexuals are fine. I have homosexual friends and aquaintanences

                    • Tyler

                      Thank you. I accept your argument. You are intelligent, reasonable, and polite. To be honest, you’re the first person I’ve seen in these arguments that exhibits those qualities all at once. It’s nice to hear that you have homosexual friends with whom you get along with, and in turn also get along with you. My only problem is individuals who believe something (even something with myriad facts that validly support it) who attempt to impose their beliefs and their opinions upon other people, especially in a way that prevents people (however immoral, or deranged you find their behavior to be) from doing something as important and life-impacting as forming some manner of civil union, seems to me a little unfair. I don’t believe in a literal creator god of sorts, and I certainly don’t agree with many aspects of Christian or Catholic dogma, but you wouldn’t see me attempting to say to Christians “hey Christians, I don’t like your nativity scenes, get rid of them!”, or something along the likes of making Christians work on Sundays, just because I think it’s lazy. Those are kind of silly examples (admittedly), but I think you get my point. I understand that you believe the actions of homosexuals are immoral or unnatural, and I respect that. But Christianity isn’t the only religion whose beliefs are protected in this country, and it isn’t the only religion believed in by the citizens protected under freedom of religion in this country either, so I think it’s a little unfair that you would impose your beliefs about homosexuality on individuals who do not practice or believe the same things, or in the same way you do. You may want freedom of religious practice, like saying “Merry Christmas” and not “Happy Holidays” in corporate settings :P, that’s fine by me, but don’t you think that when people don’t want you imposing YOUR beliefs on them that you should do it anyway is just a little bit on the side of a hypocrisy? Just my thoughts. It has to go both ways. You practice what you want to believe, and people practice what they want to believe, and as long as it is peaceful and doesn’t disturb the public (to the degree of causing riots in the streets) that’s really how it’s supposed to go. Would you ban Muslims from your neighborhood just because you don’t want them near your churches? Would you fire potential employees from your job offerings, just because they are Jewish, and don’t accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior as you do? No, because that is morally incorrect, and that is recognized as immoral by the government and many members of our society. I would hope you would agree at least to that reality. :l

                    • Dmikem


                      I’m not trying to impose my religious beliefs on anyone. If there is a religion in the United States under attack it is the Catholic Church and is members. Refusal to recognize the Christmas tree when it is a ‘secular’ symbol and it has been in use since the beginning of time…..oh but now it must be called the Winter Solstice or a Holiday Tree. I don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle and I’m painted as homophobic, called names ridiculed. I’m the subjected to this kind of intolerance all of the time!

                      Homosexual’s want to live together – their choice. Homosexuals want a civil union – their choice. But when they want to redefine marriage which has profound negative implications on all of society….I say woooo wait, no way. Already there are people trying to marry animals and inanimate objects, Canadian groups want to legalize polygamy. In California they think it is just fine to list three people as parents on birth certificates. People need to start thinking long term and think about the common good. Homosexuals make-up 10-12% of the population…they should not be permitted to jam their wants down the throats of the majority. So…in my opinion…I am the one suffering intolerance not gays.

                      You mentioned nativity scenes… Lord how many atheist groups and ACLU law suits have been filed to stop putting them up, stop prayers before sporting events, remove the word God from the pledge of allegiance? It goes on and on. I’m not making anyone pray….stand in front of a cresch

                    • Dmikem


                      Very interesting response. I’m not trying to interfere with what people do I wish I could say the same about myself. I cannot tell you the names I’ve been called and the labels these ‘tolerant’ liberal supporters of homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia have tried to lay on me. They tell me I am intolerant…a religious extremist….a homophobe…….and the invective I can’t even post because I’d get banned.

                      Now I gotta say….I don’t want anyone to be forced to say Merry Christmas but I don’t want groups saying it’s too religious. For gosh sakes it is a secular event, a national holiday and the Christmas tree is a product of Santa. Why are these ‘tolerant’ atheists, the ACLU and other special interest groups attacking Christmas…and my beliefs. There is no justification for it.

                      I oppose homosexual marriage because it has a profound negative impact on the common good. People are already trying to marry their pets, inanimate objects, group marriage. If they want a civil union go for it but noooooo they have to change the definition of marriage to serve the 10% at the expense of the 90%. It’s absurd that I am painted a bad guy when if anyone gives this a little thought the negative impact of redefining marriage is unbelievable and totally unnecessary.

                      One of my best friends is Jewish….we kid each other unmercifully. I have two friends that are atheists who I love to debate and needle (and they needle me). Catholics are not trying to make people do anything but don’t want to be made to act against our faith beliefs. Sure Catholics will use their free speech to lobby against things we feel are immoral or against the common good. It will be a cold day in hell when I will act against the teachings of the Church. Think about it….why should I pay for Sandra Flocks birth control stuff. She’s a 30 year old woman. Contraceptives are sold on every corner…they are cheap. The last time I checked getting pregnant or being pregnant is not a disease. Having sex is voluntary….she’s an adult. Yet the government has issued a mandate forcing Catholics to provide them against their religious beliefs….there goes religious freedom.

                      As a Catholic I respect all other religions and including those that reject all religious beliefs. The way this is going down in the public sector it is Catholics who are being persecuted by people who want to crush our beliefs, shut us out of the public square etc. Amazing when I think about it. I ran some pretty big companies and I had people working for me of all religious stripes….most of them were good workers and good people.

                      The key here is mutual respect…..not making people of faith act against their beliefs.

                      Your a fun guy to talk to.

                    • Tyler

                      Sounds fine by me. I’m sorry for what people have done to you.

        • Dai Yoshida

          OK, so you’re a gay Unitarian in a Catholic website arguing for gay marriage? Would you go to a Poodle-lover’s website and list reasons why people shouldn’t have pets? Frank you’re not having a discourse. You’re just a paid-troll.

          • Dai, this is the Internet, and Crisis Magazine apparently welcomes a variety of viewpoints. Otherwise, they would require membership.

            And yes, if I thought having pets was immoral, a Poodle-lover’s website is the first place I would go to say so. If I thought that family planning was immoral, I would carry my posters to the local Planned Parenthood office, not to the middle of the desert.

            BTW, the article that we are discussing is about civility, and yet you just called me a “paid troll” without presenting a shred of evidence that that is so.

            • Dai Yoshida

              Forgive me. You are an “unpaid-troll”.

              • I would think that, if you were certain of your views and wanted to influence others, you would welcome the chance to expose the fallacies in your opponent’s arguments. Why talk only to people who already agree with you? The real challenge is to explain and justify your views to someone who does not hold them.

                • Dai Yoshida

                  I am not defending a personal view. The Catholic Church has perpetuated the teachings of Jesus Christ since the first century. (Read Didache, the Early church Fathers, etc.) I have an obligation to correct a fellow Catholic who have strayed from the Church. I am not obliged to argue with a non-believer who is not interested in being educated by, being informed by or even tolerant of Catholic teachings. Some people enjoys verbal ping-pong. I don’t.

                  • I wasn’t asking you to discuss any of this with me. It was your choice.

            • Do you think that your comments are going to change the minds of any Catholics here? Generally speaking, I will go to “enemy lines” and post my opinions if I think there is even a shred of a possibility that I will change even one person’s mind.

        • Felini

          I believe you should have every equal treatment under the law. That said, I oppose the use of the term marriage for same-sex unions as it is from God and a sacrament between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. Therefore, I don’t agree to same-sex couples in the not distant at all future coming to my church and demanding to be married and then threatening legal action..

          • :D

            Nobody said that gays/lesbians wanted to force your churches to marry them. They just want the legal right to marry under non-religiously affiliated, secular law. A civil union for homosexuals under a government that is beyond the Catholic Church’s jurisdiction offends you? I’m sorry, but it’s just unfair that you would force everyone else to follow your beliefs about anything (including marriage), just as you (rightly) state that it would be unfair for homosexuals to request your religious institutions to ‘marry’ them when you disagree with that. And marriage is an institution existent in myriad other cultures beyond the Christianized ones, so who are you to say what “marriage” is, strictly your idea of one? I sense a great deal of some manner of hypocrisy in your argument (which like many of the Catholic anti-gay marriage arguments I’ve heard, sound more like fuming opinions, and emotional outbursts, than a concise argument). And if pro-homosexual arguments aren’t viable to promote their interests, why can’t your sides arguments be more consistent? Your arguments (I’ve heard plenty of them) seem to come out of nowhere, are based in disproven, debatable, or just-plain emotionally-loaded remarks that seem to switch from point-to-point at the slightest self-realized inconsistency revealed in said arguments. You don’t seem to provide raw data in your arguments, but statements often reliant on circular arguments and a critical opinion instead. 🙁

            • Dmikem


              There is nothing inconsistent about arguments against homosexual marriage. Think about it…..two men marry…two women marry….three men and two women marry….a guy gets married to his dog…. Already in Canada there is an argument that polygamy should be allowed and in California three people can be listed on a birth certificate as parents. There’s a woman that wants to marry her dog…..if you think this kind of stuff is ok….well we will just half to agree to disagree.

              Once you change the fundamental meaning of marriage…between one man and one women….all bets are off. I’m against gay marriage because it will change the fundamental make-up of society and not for the better.

              • Tyler

                I can see your point in that view. Very well. I don’t quite agree with dogs and people marrying. But what are we discussing here, the possibility of accepting homosexual marriages, polygamy, or inter-species marriages? You are implying some manner of slippery-slope argument that simply won’t work, for the same reasons the slippery-slope arguments employed by those opposed to the abolishment of slavery or allowance of female suffrage will not work either. Think of the societal implications that would have been considered back in the day when men shuddered at the thought of women making decisions (dun dun duuuuunnn!), or people of a rather dark skin pigmentation no longer working indefinitely as private property for white folk, the implications argued against were huge! All of a sudden women were voting and getting careers and jobs, but everything turned out fine, and when black people (no longer slaves) were getting jobs (that payed) that was fine too. And many people saw interracial relationships/marriages as sickening and morally-incorrect or wrong, but yep!, that turned out to be harmless too. Did you ever take into consideration that some people’s definition of marriage may be a relationship between two ‘people’ (gender-neutral). And the benefits of marriage desired by homosexuals would not effect relationships between spouses or an inter-species marriage (because such benefits prescribe aid and responsibilities of the spouses that simply could not occur with a non-sapient (inhuman) animal such as a dog). As for polygamy, that’s a complication that may be irrelevant to attempting to define marriage and its institution and implications, but is utterly and completely irrelevant when strictly discussing homosexual marriage (or ‘civil unions’), and only appeals to the slippery-slope argument (which implies future societal horrors that simply cannot be proven will ever actually occur, and has historically been proven, every time, to exaggerate to implications, however negative or drastic, of allowing a course of action or decision to actually unfold). While you may have plenty of supportive facts, appealing to the implications of marriage pertaining to changing the definition of marriage to make people happy such as inter-species marriage, operates wholly on an argument that leaves to much to assumption, not fact. You’re simply using polygamy and bestiality to guide the argument to a direction that implies that homosexual marital rights are the same. They are not. By adding such points as other seemingly perverse exceptions of your shallow definition of marriage (man + woman) you are only trying (it would seem) to make my point of view worse than it actually is or may turn out to be.

                • Dmikem


                  With all due resect there is no slippery slope if someone can marry a horse and give it all the privileges of a spouse. I can’t even image having a dinner party and some guy brings his mare along….holy cow (pun intended).

                  With respect to your arguments about slavery, woman’s suffrage etc. These laws were unjust from the get-go. The same cannot be said of marriage and by redefining marriage in accordance with your logic will destroy society as we know it. Why is it that this minorities can’t accept civil contracts that provide the same protections….why the demand to redefine marriage?

                  When I was in the military I visited New York. A couple of guys got tickets to a floor show. What I didn’t know is that it was a people having sex with animals……I left that place like I was on fire when it began….most sickening thing I have saw.

                  I’d like to see these minority groups fight for civil contracts that afford the same basic protections as in marriage. I think the reason that want to redefine marriage is they thing it will legitimize their relationship…mainstream them. But they are wrong for all the reasons I gave in my previous posts.

                  Oh by the way….55 million abortions since Roe v Wade, do you think this is a moral and just law in the name of women’s rights?

            • GracieW

              Where have you been? Homosexuals are already suing Christian bakeries that don’t want to violate their religious beliefs by making cakes for gay weddings. Even though there are 20 other bakeries nearby ready to bake their cake, the gay couples attack and sue the Christians to FORCE them to partake in a ceremony that violates their conscience. Already gay couples are suing Christian caterers, Christian bed and breakfast owners, etc… YES if gay marriage is made legal they will force ALL churches to marry them! I had this discussion with one of my gay friends.

    • givelifeachance2

      Their right to a family ends where Brave New World begins. Their type of “family” is the vanguard of the globalist NWO wherein only politically-correct couples are deemed “roundup-ready” and the rest are kept sterile by repro-technology.

    • Sandy, you are absolutely correct. Genuine understanding requires empathy, the ability to put yourself in someone else’s place. Isn’t it just the basis of Jesus’s teaching? And yet it requires such an effort.

  • grahamcombs

    I lived in New York for many years, worked in publishing there, and attended law school there so my first reaction to the president’s change of heart was identical to Prof. Jacobson’s. But then I never believed candidate Obama in the first place. But it was not prescience that predicted the disasters of this presidency. It was fear. The president may well be turned out of the White House in November but the political and moral culture he has legitimized will not go away. America was transformed long before it was a political promise in the fall of 2008.
    In New York, the Archbishop pushes aside an opportunity to make clear that the Church is serious about her moral teachings. This week the Archdiocese of Detroit collects guns as if that will restore families and neighborhoods. A few weeks ago the Knights of Columbus spends precious dollars on a media campaign for a “civil” political season when the time for words has passed. What does the president have to say and do; how bad does it have to get for our fatherless and uneducated children; how toxic does our culture have to become for our leaders to take seriously the America we now live in? Whether they understand it or not, they send one message to the left, another to the faithful. It’s the left that is encouraged.
    Graham Combs

  • Mr. DeMarco, you quote Lord Carey: “People who oppose gay marriage are being treated like homophobes and bigots by those who call for tolerance.”

    Marriage equality advocates rightly see this kind of statement as disingenuous, because, in fact, “those who call for tolerance” are not on just one side of the debate. Obviously, each side wants the other to stop obstructing them and will use any amount of shame and blame to achieve their ends. So Lord Carey wrongly suggests that marriage traditionalists alone are the persecuted ones. There’s plenty of nastiness on both sides.

    The prize is the moral high ground, which neither faction would ever reach if the only criterion were civility. Either the traditionalists or the liberals will gain that ground, but not both. Fifty years hence, the issue will be decided, as it already virtually is in ten (soon 12) countries and 6 (soon 8) states. The trends are pretty clear, and the analogy between this rights movement and previous ones is undeniable.

    Today, those white men who used to sit around on the stoop of the general store complaining about the “negras” are almost universally recognized as bigots. They’re not called that just because the liberals had the backing of the U.S. Marshals in Birmingham. They’re called that because the word “bigot” has a meaning that people came to understand. It described a certain irrational way of thinking about people whom we fear and dislike. It described a failure of empathy and a disregard for evidence. “Bigotry” describes an attitude of pre-judging, stereotyping, and generalizing from individuals to entire classes of people. (to be continued)

  • (continued from previous) And yes, everybody IS a bigot to greater or lesser degrees. The sooner we can recognize that, the better. One of your readers comments, “The LGBT people have marginalized themselves because they all (like the atheists) must resort to hyperbole, namecalling, insults, ridicule, etc.”

    My answer is that, yes, some LGBT people do these things, and so do some Catholics and other Christians.

    Just last week one of the bloggers on this very site expressed an opposing viewpoint without any name-calling or ad hominems. The other bloggers reactions over a period of several days led him to write that he had “learned” several things about himself. The following, in his words, is what he “learned”:

    “I’m a paid troll. I’m boring. I’m a narcissist. I’m on the take. I have a disordered mind. I’m an offense to God. I’m not a Catholic (couldn’t possibly be). I feign genuine inquiry. My arguments are simplistic, cliché-ridden, tedious, and irritating. I indulge in personal insults and derogatory, patronizing comments. I need psychiatric help. I am a legend in my own mind. I am like a swine that likes to roll in its own filth. I am a sick little man. I am psycho-sexually disordered. Homosexuality is my chosen perversion. I fear and hate women.”

    Maybe we should all remember one of the cardinal rule of respectful discourse: Address the ideas; don’t slam the person expressing them.

  • Anonymous

    It’s TRUE! This truly is one of the LGBTs many nasty tactics.

    I recently had a discussion with some homosexuals on Chick-Fil-A’s facebook page, & they started to name-call me because I disagreeing with homosexuality. I never made one quote from the Bible when I discussed why I oppose their ideology; my reasons where all scientific & common sense.

    These people are truly spiteful & disgusting. You can’t even have a simple discussion with them without them throwing a tamper tantrum. When they don’t get their way, they start using violence. There is NOTHING tolerant about the GLBTs. They bully anyone who disagree with them. Many people have religious & personal reasons to disagree with homosexuality, & queers are just gonna have to deal with it.

    Personally, I’m getting tired of the LGBTs trampling & bullying those who disagree with them.

    • GracieW

      I actually have found my gay friends to be pretty honest and open-minded. They know I don’t support gay marriage and love me just the same. It is the non-gay gay supporters who are the worst. I was told I have a “splash of hate” because I wondered why the LGBT community doesn’t gather support for businesses that feature gay couples in their ads, such as JC Penney that is facing bankruptcy. Gay folks are all upset that Barilla doesn’t want to use gay families in their ads (their right) and so they’re calling for a boycott of Barilla (their right) but I just wonder, instead of boycotting, support pro-gay businesses the way traditional marriage supporters rallied around Chick-fil-A. I was told I have a “search and destroy” mentality towards gays (oh and that I can’t say “gays”…even though people say “Christians” etc…) The fact that I had a lesbian as a bridesmaid in my wedding, several gay friends there, the fact that as a hiring manager I hired “out and proud” gays…all this is for naught because apparently I have this hidden hate for them. Disagreement = hate these days. It is just intellectual laziness on their part I think. I’m a libertarian. I’d like to discuss gay marriage without the name calling but alas…I’m such a hopeless, intolerant, hateful bigot.

    • DN

      Could you post photos of your bruises, cuts, or other injuries to substantiate claims that you were trampled and that violence was used against you?

  • Grant

    “…cogitione, verbo et opere…” they are put in that order for a reason.