March 31, 2013

"Sometimes by nature, the Church has got to be out of touch with concerns, because we’re always supposed to be thinking of the beyond, the eternal, the changeless..."

"Our major challenge is to continue in a credible way to present the eternal concerns to people in a timeless attractive way. And sometimes there is a disconnect – between what they’re going through and what Jesus and his Church is teaching.  And that’s a challenge for us."

So said Archbishop of New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan. He was talking to the less-than-eternal and somewhat attractive George Stephanopoulos, who naturally asked him about same-sex marriage. The answer:
“Well, the first thing I’d say to them is, ‘I love you, too.  And God loves you.  And you are made in God’s image and likeness.  And – and we – we want your happiness.  But – and you’re entitled to friendship.’  But we also know that God has told us that the way to happiness, that – especially when it comes to sexual love – that is intended only for a man and woman in marriage, where children can come about naturally,” Dolan said. “We got to be – we got to do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people.  And I admit, we haven’t been too good at that.  We try our darndest to make sure we’re not an anti-anybody.”
I wonder if a solution could be for the government to recognize same-sex marriages, so that gay people aren't deprived of any of the legal rights, and the religious people who think God has proscribed gay sex could simply view these gay couples as friends and stop thinking about what they might be doing sexually. Even if you think gay sex is a sin, isn't it also sinful to put time and effort into thinking about what sins other people are committing? Even where you don't think sex is a sin — for example, where a married man and woman engage in fully loving sexual intercourse — isn't it wrong to pry into another couple's sexual interaction? Why not back off and concentrate on doing your darndest to make sure you're not anti-anybody?

ADDED: Remember that Jesus said:
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."
And if that log is other men's cocks, really, get it out of your eye. You look ridiculous.

215 comments:

1 – 200 of 215   Newer›   Newest»
Danno said...

Although I don't disagree with you, I think there are elements of the SSM group that won't be happy until the church(es) are forced to marry these people or be sued for not doing it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Even if you think gay sex is a sin, isn't it also sinful to put time and effort into thinking about what sins other people are committing?

Just like abortion, I don't want my tax dollars supporting it. If you want to go forth and sin....feel free....just don't ask other people who have religious objections to your activities to subsidize or pay for them.

If people insist that we must separate Church and State in all aspects.... then those religious people can surely demand that you separate being forced to pay for secular activities that violate their religious principles.

Fair is fair. You can't have it both ways.

Synova said...

"I wonder if a solution could be for the government to recognize same-sex marriages, so that gay people aren't deprived of any of the legal rights."

Isn't that what is called "civil union?"

A lot of other people thought that should be a solution, too.

Until they found out it was hateful bigotry.

Ann Althouse said...

@Danno There are very strong rights in the First Amendment — freedom of speech and freedom of religion — that are the protection here.

Don't oppose other people's rights on the ground that you will lose yours. Support rights for others. Support the culture that believes rights are real and important, and expect other people to support you when your rights are at stake.

That is the best position.

Ann Althouse said...

@Synova The problem is government establishing two classes of marriage and relegating gay people to a different category. There isn't a justification for that.

It's not that it's "hateful bigotry." It's that it is a govt action that lacks a rational basis. That is the legal issue.

Let the law be done properly according to legal principles, and then everyone can say whatever they want about it (and hear what others think about what they've said).

Terry said...

'I wonder if a solution could be for the government to recognize same-sex marriages, so that gay people aren't deprived of any of the legal rights, and the religious people who think God has proscribed gay sex could simply view these gay couples as friends and stop thinking about what they might be doing sexually.'

How in the world could you restrict this to 'gay people', w/o depriving non-gay and non-hetero couples (or other groupings) of their rights? Why would it be more reasonable to extend these rights to gay couples and not to others who want the legal benefits of marriage, but do not fit into a gay or heterosexual romantic partnership?

victoria said...

Ann, as always you are the voice of reason in the midst of chaos. Bravo

Dudes, it s a constitutional thing, not a church thing.

What happened to the love others part of religion?

One of the many reasons why organized religion is not for me.

Vicki from Pasadena

tiger said...

What 'rights' are gays denied?

Farmer said...

I wonder if a solution could be for the government to recognize same-sex marriages, so that gay people aren't deprived of any of the legal rights, and the religious people who think God has proscribed gay sex could simply view these gay couples as friends and stop thinking about what they might be doing sexually.

So we should willfully delude ourselves?

As I've asked here many, many times, why was the fight for civil unions dropped? Why did it have to become a fight over marriage?

Neither you nor anyone else has answered that yet.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If you turn it, gay marriage, into legal marriage and by definition allow those SSM married couples to have access to all of the social/welfare/monetary benefits granted to "married" couples now then you are running into a huge separation of religion and state issue.

The reason that Planned Parenthood is being defunded in many states is due to the tax dollars that have been extorted from people being used for things that they don't just disagree with, like war, bullet trains to nowhere or super highways (to derail Freder who without fail brings out this straw man to kick around) but for things that they have religious objections to like murdering unborn children or SSM. (Not that I conflate those two to be the same, but some religious people do).

If you are going to fund these things with public money and insist that State and Religion be separate, you must find a way to separate the money too.

Farmer said...

Your side picked the fight, Althouse. It seems a little disingenuous for you to be advising us. Particularly when your advice always ends with "Give up."

Royal Tenenbaum said...

"Even if you think gay sex is a sin, isn't it also sinful to put time and effort into thinking about what sins other people are committing?"

No, it isn't.

You probably shouldn't quote Jesus if you're trying to support same-sex marriage. Especially that particular passage, and especially when you're out of your depth and trying to invent sins. Talk about log vs. speck.

Or am I confused and is this cheap Easter trolling?

Andy R. said...

"We gotta be – we gotta do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people. And I admit, we haven’t been too good at that."

No, you haven't.

Synova said...

"Even where you don't think sex is a sin — for example, where a married man and woman engage in fully loving sexual intercourse — isn't it wrong to pry into another couple's sexual interaction? Why not back off and concentrate on doing your darndest to make sure you're not anti-anybody?"

So what you're saying is that the church should just skip talking about morality altogether?

Can the church teach that pre-marital sex is wrong? Could the church teach that maybe monogamy is a good plan and that "hooking up" or going to parties really drunk is a bad idea and that the *sex* hurts you? Could the church teach responsibility toward the children you have from your "sexual interaction" if the church isn't supposed to bother with your sexual interaction?

Are there any other sins that the church can denounce for fear of being "anti" someone?

The way our society is at this point, in relation to sex, we can't even really say that if you get off on pretending to rape or hurt someone, that something just might be wrong with you. Or that if you need to "play act" being a slave, rape victim, or abused person in order to have a relationship that you're ILL. If it wasn't *sex* we'd be talking about psychological damage and relationship disfunction.

Is there any sort of sex that a church ought to be able to teach is harmful? Can they say to the prostitute AS JESUS DID that she was forgiven and to sin no more?

gbarto said...

The problem is government establishing two classes of marriage and relegating gay people to a different category. There isn't a justification for that.

Indeed, we should all be relegated to civil unions and sacraments should be left to churches. Danno is right that some gays won't be happy until the church has to marry them too. The answer to that is to put a much needed firewall between the civil contract of marriage and the sacramental rite. Want a church wedding but no marriage penalty? Only get married in church. Want an improved situation for passing on your assets and to make sure your life partner and not your idiot brother is making your medical decisions? Get a civil union. Want both? That's fine, but one has nothing to do with another.

Dan Hossley said...

"Why not back off and concentrate on doing your darndest to make sure you're not anti-anybody?"

This is really silly advice.

How exactly do you achieve this state of "not anti-anybody" since your not in control of what other people think?

Dan Hossley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Farmer said...

Synova said... what you're saying is that the church should just skip talking about morality altogether?

No - she's trolling.

Ironically, it makes her look ridiculous.

Maybe even a little cockeyed.

Farmer said...

Yeah, Althouse was "anti-anybody" during the protests at the Capitol.

Ridiculous!

Synova said...

I think there are elements of the SSM group that won't be happy until the church(es) are forced to marry these people or be sued for not doing it.

"@Danno There are very strong rights in the First Amendment — freedom of speech and freedom of religion — that are the protection here."

Which is why we don't have to worry about the 2nd Amendment, right? No worries about losing that at all, because it's right there in the Constitution.

And also, those strong First Amendment Rights are why we don't have brand new shiny laws that require religious employers to provide birth control and abortions.

Right?

How much different is it between forcing a church to pay for abortions and forcing them to perform a marriage?

jr565 said...

Even if you think gay sex is a sin, isn't it also sinful to put time and effort into thinking about what sins other people are committing? Even where you don't think sex is a sin — for example, where a married man and woman engage in fully loving sexual intercourse — isn't it wrong to pry into another couple's sexual interaction?

ok, so what about incest?

jr565 said...

Ann Althouse:
Don't oppose other people's rights on the ground that you will lose yours. Support rights for others. Support the culture that believes rights are real and important, and expect other people to support you when your rights are at stake.

What rights are you referring to? Rights that gays havcen't possessed? How are these rigths? You don't even have a "right" to marry traditionally. but to say you have an absolute right to marriage means, polygamists have right to marriage, a father has a right ot marry his daughter. Don't stand in the way of peoples rights, hypocrite.

Lezer said...

And if that log is other men's cocks, really, get it out of your eye. You look ridiculous.

Well put. We've had marriage equality for twelve years now where I live, and I can assure everyone that it's the least of our problems.

Lezer said...

And if that log is other men's cocks, really, get it out of your eye. You look ridiculous.

Well put. We've had marriage equality for twelve years now where I live, and I can assure everyone that it's the least of our problems.

edutcher said...

I saw Dolan's remark and was floored that somebody in the American Church actually got it.

The role of the Church is not to be cool, hip, or popular. It's to get people to live by God's teachings.

victoria said...

Ann, as always you are the voice of reason in the midst of chaos. Bravo

Dudes, it s a constitutional thing, not a church thing.

What happened to the love others part of religion?

One of the many reasons why organized religion is not for me.


I thought little Vicki was proud to be a cafeteria Catholic. How the worms turn.

PS Funny how Ann is the "voice of reason" only when she supports the Lefty view.

They didn't Bravo! or Brava! her when she sided with Walker.

jr565 said...

I can't stand the use of "judge not lest ye be judged" by secular people, since they only look at one side of the equation.

When jesus was faced with the mob about to stone the whore he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". But then he said to the whore "now go and sin no more".

How far do secular people want to take this, considering we are a nation of laws that jail people for behavior that society deems is wrong. Meaning, they are being JUDGED!
For fucks sake, we are getting lectured by a LAW Professor of all people. if you believe in the law then you believe in judging people and holding them to account.

If marriage is made up of laws, then it definitionally has in place a definition that will restrict people who don't meet the definition, whatever that definition may be.

The distinction that Althouse is asking for, may be a distinction that you might tell an individual but not society. And does she really even believe it?
Hell no. She's on record saying society can limit marriage when it comes to polygamy and incest.

But, but, but.... shouldn't we stop looking at sin and let people do what they want, or whatever poppycock Althouse is slinging.

God, how coudl someone as smart as Anne at the same time be so damn stupid?

jr565 said...

Support the culture that believes rights are real and important, and expect other people to support you when your rights are at stake.

So I assume Althouse willl support those in incestual relationships whos' rights (which are both real and important) when their rights are at stake. Since, they will probably go to jail if such a relationship is ever discovered, that time is now.

James Pawlak said...

Check out the most avoided verses:
luke 22:35-38.

jr565 said...

Even if you think gay sex is a sin, isn't it also sinful to put time and effort into thinking about what sins other people are committing?

Tell that to the guy who's having sex with his daughter when the social worker removes her from the household. Why is the social worker even there? shouldnt' they stop worrying about what's happening in families behind closed doors?

Ann Althouse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Ann Althouse wrote:
What you don't get is that my lefty associates object to my showing respect to bigots. I should tell them they are just plain wrong over and over again, that they are hurting people and it must stop NOW.

Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder. Some will view you as a bigot in saying that society has the right to ban polygamy.

Bigot.

Roger J. said...

Lord Lord--yet another SSM post--perhaps we could reduce this BS to numbers--everyone post a given number for a given rationale and we wouldn't have to wade thru the same crap day after day. Tiresome and banal every day, all the time.

Ann Althouse said...

"Funny how Ann is the "voice of reason" only when she supports the Lefty view."

What you don't get is that my lefty associates tell me that I should not show any respect to people they consider bigots, that I should tell you that you are just plain wrong, that I should say clearly and consistently that you are hurting people, and you need to stop NOW. They say I am giving your side air and perpetuating the wrong and I need to extricate myself decisively from this evil.

That's the message you don't know I am getting from people I know very well.

Inga said...

And those people are correct Ann.

jr565 said...

And traditional marriage has been configured that way in this country for like ever, and around the world for like ever. Calling people bigots who believe that marriage means what is has always meant makes you sound like an elitist bigot.

There is something really annoying frankly with people arguing for gay marriage who suggest that there is no rational basis for ordering marriage the way it has always been. that's what's offensive.

marriage was not created to fuck gays over. Gays were tertiary to the question of what society valued when it came to marriage which has ALWAYS been to honor the family structure that will best raise kids which are created biologically by the people that are in the relationship. So the facxt that gays feel aggrieved doesn't invalidate that premise.

PeterK said...

"I wonder if a solution could be for the government to recognize same-sex marriages, so that gay people aren't deprived of any of the legal rights"
governments of whatever type for thousands of years have been deciding who can and can not get married. they focused on male/female marriages for stability of the society and for the children resulting from such unions. Civil marriages really didn't come into play until the 19th c.
One thing I've not seen by any media conservative or liberal is how many SSM marriages have taken place in those states where it has been legalized. there is usually an initial rush, but how many have taken place since the initial rush in those states.
the really sad part is how SSM proponents have demonized their opponents

Roger J. said...

Perhaps, professor, you should look more closely at the people with whom you associate.

Pogo said...

Tolerance fascism demands dissent be suffocated.

Message received.

Erika said...

What you don't get is that my lefty associates object to my showing respect to bigots. I should tell them they are just plain wrong clearly and consistently, that they are hurting people and it must stop NOW. I am told that I should not give their side any air.

What YOU apparently don't get is that no matter how many times you condescend to your readers in this matter, they stubbornly continue to not give a shit what your friends think.

jr565 said...

Ann Althouse wrote;
What you don't get is that my lefty associates tell me that I should not show any respect to people they consider bigots, that I should tell you that you are just plain wrong, that I should say clearly and consistently that you are hurting people, and you need to stop NOW

When you say society can ban polygamy or incest for whatever unstated reason you never gave are you aware that you are hurting the people you are restricting? Are you not aware of that?
So, if the basis for calling someone a bigot is that the action of restricting their behavior means that they are hurt by the restriction, then definitionally you are a bigot for supporting any restriction to marriage. So why do you do so?
Do you think that someone who is underage who thinks they are in love with the older gentleman who wants to marry her isn't hurt when she can't marry for love, even though you think society has the right to dictate who she can and can't havce relationships with out of some notion that they are upholding the social good?
How can they be upholding the social good if they are hurting her, and depriving her of her "rights"?

Terry said...

What 'reasonable' objection could be made to allowing siblings to marry, if one or the other is sterile?
Of course it would be unreasonable to require one of them to be made before marriage.
After all, they can just abort the fetus if its genes aren't up to government standards. That would be reasonable.
Unless they are forced to abort the child. That would be unreasonable.

Roger J. said...

The law is an ass (apologies to Dickens) but totally relevant to law professors, lawyers and jurists.

Erika said...

I'm wondering what is happening here, with this full court press on SSM here at Althouse. Either

A) Althouse knows she is full of baloney on this, for reasons that have been explained to her hundreds of times by very bright people, and is working through complicated personal feelings on this topic, or

B) she's lost all rationality in this area and truly believes that this little project is going to convince the recalcitrant to think as she does, which she unironically refers to as the "correct" position.

Either explanation is odd.

n.n said...

Either homosexual activists, and their heterosexual patrons, support equal protection, and equal rights and benefits, for all people, without consideration for sexual or platonic relationships, forms and kinds of unions, and numbers and combinations, or they are betraying their cause, and guilty of a unique prejudice.

Their heterosexual patrons must reject elective abortion. The choice is not to commit premeditated murder for personal convenience, and to preserve wealth and welfare of the mother or father. The choice is not to sponsor a general devaluation of human life.

Finally, it is an illegitimate choice to favor redistributive or retributive change while denigrating individual dignity and devaluing human life. The people who are willing to sacrifice human lives in order to receive material benefit are execrable individuals.

The decent man or woman will not denigrate individual dignity.

The decent man or woman will not devalue human life to favor their personal wealth and welfare.

The decent man or woman will not practice a select and unique prejudice. If we dispense with biological imperatives, and supporting cultural traditions, then there is no credible argument to continue discrimination against any individual or any union they may desire to form.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Ann Althouse wrote:
"What you don't get is that my lefty associates tell me that I should not show any respect to people they consider bigots, that I should tell you that you are just plain wrong,"

So I guess that means that you aren't friendly with any polygamists and most lefties arent either. They'd probably tell you what a bigot you were in saying society should discriminate against them. in fact that's probalby why they don't associate with you. Because you are using the exact same standard against them that the bigots are using against gay marriage.

You know what's worst than judging not lest ye be judged? Pretending to judge not lest ye be judged and holding people to account for their bigotry, yet still judging others as commiting sin and saying it's ok to discriminate against them.

Marriage is restricted in many ways that don't involve gays. So, in all those ways, where you side with society in restricting those marriages, you are in effect no practicing what you preach Althouse.
So dont' get on your soap box talking about how we need to suspend all judgment when you don't.

And that goes for Inga too.

Shouting Thomas said...

Althouse drags out the classic taunt:

"Let's talk about homos. If you disagree with me, you're probably a closet queer."

This has always been a fag hag favorite. Althouse reverts to junior high school! Something about this subject invariably sends the girls back to that!

Inga said...

It's to Althouse's credit that she does show respect to the bigots here, in light of the disrespect they show her, the owner of this blog.

n.n said...

Professor Althouse:

The bigots are homosexual activists and their heterosexual patrons who demonstrate a unique prejudice which favors their personal gratification and interests.

How can a decent man or woman discriminate against any union, sexual or platonic, irrespective of kind and form, without consideration for numbers and combinations?

How can a decent man or woman arbitrarily discriminate against a human life based on its stage of development?

How can a decent man or woman commit or support premeditated murder of a developing human life when it has no voice to protest nor arms to challenge its premature termination?

If we decide to reject biological imperatives and the natural order for personal convenience, then the decent man or woman will reject progressive, incremental nonsense, and support equal stature and standing for all individuals and unions they may form. That is the only choice for decent men and women.

Farmer said...

Guys, let's all settle down. Althouse is doing us all a big favor by letting us post here. I mean, her friends give her shit about it, but she still lets us comment. She's a hero, like Lincoln, or Jesus.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Remember all 'decent' people agree with Althouse's views on SSM. If you don't you are a indecent bigot. and SHUT UP you bigots.

Plus....whatever happened to that 'posting without attempting to persuade' mantra?

Farmer said...

Lincoln's the one that freed the gays, right?

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
t's to Althouse's credit that she does show respect to the bigots here, in light of the disrespect they show her, the owner of this blog.

If she's calling them bigots then that's not exactly respectful. And if the person on the other end does't think they are a bigot or have an issue with her words, why can they not argue against her point vociferously?

And incidentally, why are you not a bigot again? You seem to be ok with denying certain people the right to marry now. Why are we judging the anti gay marriage types as bigots, but not the anti polygamist types? or the anti incest types? or the anti bigamist types? or the anti under age marriage types? or the anti harem types? etc ad infinitum.

Methadras said...

My closet and eyes are pretty clean. The phallacy of judgment used against others a blunt force object to keep them from judging others is pedestrian and foolish.

Terry said...

Does any commenter here (other than me) actually know the definition of the word 'bigot'?
People on the left are bigots. They have bigoted opinions on every issue of public policy, usually anti-religious bigotry.

Shouting Thomas said...

Inga, you're quite preposterous here.

White liberal women are a mess. Undercut their own men and feign fag worship.

The egghead white women are the worst.

sinz52 said...

Dust Bunny Queen sez: "then those religious people can surely demand that you separate being forced to pay for secular activities that violate their religious principles."

No, they cannot demand that.

The courts decided that issue long ago.

Many Amish and Quakers are religious pacifists. So are many religious conscientious objectors in wartime. They cannot be drafted and sent off to war.

But the courts have ruled that they still have to pay their income taxes, even though part of those income taxes goes to the Pentagon to fight wars.

As a citizen, you have certain civil responsibilities--like paying your taxes--that you cannot opt out of by citing religious freedom.

el polacko said...

awfully nice of this 'archbishop' fellow to decide what citizens who happen to be gay are "entitled to", isn't it ?

jr565 said...

Inga, and Althouse, lets stipulate (while leaving aside gay marriage entirely) that marriage is restricted. Lets pretend that gays were allowed to marry and that the only restrictions are you can't marry your brother, you can't marry someone under age, you can't marry more than two people and you can't have more than one marriage at a time.
Lets also stipulate that in all cases there are people who are restricted from doing so beucase society so deems.

And lets stipulate that marriage is a "right" and that it should be based on love. And that we should judge not lest we be judged.
And lets stipulate that the people who can't marry are hurt by the restriction.

Why, Inga and Althouse is the situaiton any different? If you don't support hte people who are restricted from marrying for love, how are you not bigots? How are you not denying rights? Since you are the ones saying that marriage is an absolute right.

Why are you not complete and utter hypocrites according to your own standard.

Shall we call you bigots? I don't see why the standard shouldn't apply.

Ann Althouse said...

jr565 said..."Ann Althouse wrote: 'What you don't get is that my lefty associates object to my showing respect to bigots. I should tell them they are just plain wrong over and over again, that they are hurting people and it must stop NOW.' Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder. Some will view you as a bigot in saying that society has the right to ban polygamy. Bigot."

I edited my comment to make it clearer as is posted later. jr565 is quoting a post replaced, but the quote is accurate as the pre-edited comment.

Saint Croix said...

the religious people who think God has proscribed gay sex could simply view these gay couples as friends and stop thinking about what they might be doing sexually.

I actually think a lot of liberals (particularly women) are like this. They aren't thinking about men having sex with each other. So it's a sort of sexual repression they engage in, a refusal to think about sex. Which is fine. In fact, it's often healthy to be this way.

For instance, we're always grossed out when we think of our parents having sex. (Or at least I am!) So the only solution is not to think about it. I mean, imagine your parents flaunting their sexuality around you! I would flee the room.

You can accept it as a theoretical matter. I know my parents had sex, because I am here. I exist. But that doesn't mean I want that image in my head.

And yet one of the unusual things about gay politics is this horror of the closet, which is to say, a horror of keeping your sexuality private. Thus much of gay politics is actually designed to get you thinking about gay sex and to accept it. Thus we have dildo parades and glitter attacks and all the rest of it.

I see the gay marriage fight as dominated by women and feminism. It's a very girly vision of the universe. It's Brokeback Mountain. It's relationships. It's hand-holding. It's Liberace stuff. Oh, Liberace is here, and he brought his friend!

I think gay men are far more sexual than women want to think about. There's a tremendous amount of repression in the way women think about gay men. What percentage of women watch gay porn, for instance? 5%? Less? And if you're not interested in homosexuality as sexuality, then what are you doing? Playing house?

What percentage of men watch lesbian porn? It's like asking what percentage of men watch porn. Because our porn is filled with lesbians.

In other words, men are comfortable with homosexuality (as long as it's hot lesbians) and women are comfortable with homosexuality (as long as it's relationships). But we tend to react to homosexuality from our own sexual roles. Straight men are not comfortable with gay men having sex, and neither are straight women. There's a lot of denial and repression in the SSM debate, I think. But it's sex, so what else is new?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

What you don't get is that my lefty associates tell me that I should not show any respect to people they consider bigots, that I should tell you that you are just plain wrong, that I should say clearly and consistently that you are hurting people, and you need to stop NOW. They say I am giving your side air and perpetuating the wrong and I need to extricate myself decisively from this evil.

In other words....shut up you bigots. If you don't agree with me I will cut off your air. La la la la....I have my fingers in my ears and can't hear you.

Shouting Thomas said...

White women are the only women I've encountered who try deliberately to destroy their own men. Women of every other racial group fight like hell to promote and defend their men.

Liberal white women seem to be possessed by demons.

Roger J. said...

This is a wonderful thread when juxtaposed with day of its posting. And many of the comments herein.

jr565 said...

el polacko wrote:
awfully nice of this 'archbishop' fellow to decide what citizens who happen to be gay are "entitled to", isn't it ?

In the case of marriage HE didn't decide anything. it's not as if society went up to him and said "archbishop, should we let gays marry?"

But isn't it awfully nice of scoiety to tell citizens who happen to be polygamists what they should be entitled to. Or bigamists. And it's awfully nice that society is telling people that they can't vote if they aren't a certian age, or can't marry their boyfriend who happens to be in his 30's if they are under a certain age.

Are those people society is telling what they can and can't do not citizens?

n.n said...

Terry:

bigot

A sanctimonious hypocrite.

The bigots need to reject progressive, incremental nonsense. If society, and humanity, does choose to reject objective and/or traditional standards, the bigots should no longer be permitted to find sanctuary in their selective ideology.

All unions, irrespective of kinds and forms, numbers and combinations, sexual or platonic relationships, must be afforded equal standing and stature in society.

All human life, from conception (or "creation") to grave, must be afforded equal protection, and the government must carry out its mandate to preserve its unalienable Right to Life.

Women who commit premeditated murder as principals or through proxy (i.e. "doctors"), should suffer the same consequences as any other murderer. Their lives should be forfeit. Their is no defensible or rational basis to sponsor a general devaluation of human life. The women, and men, have made the wrong choice and must accept responsibility for their actions.

Methadras said...

Tiger said...

What 'rights' are gays denied?


You will never get an answer to that question simply because there are no rights they are denied. A homosexual has the same rights as you do, whether male or female. However, they want exclusivity of rights because they are homosexuals. Meaning they want protection rights that are above you or I as heterosexuals. They also want governmental and societal acknowledgement of who they are as homosexuals and therefore they expect that will bring legitimacy to who they are as homosexuals and they believe under that context they will be equal citizens. Therefore they attack the institution of marriage as always having been between the genders of men and women to include themselves as being the same gender. They want to infiltrate that club in order to feel or think they are equal as a basis that gender has no relevancy to marriage.

What they fail to recognize is that men and women are different and the reason why marriage is exclusive to that difference. But nay, you can't tell anyone anymore that something is exclusive which would bring the ad hom tsunami of racist, bigot, homophobe, sexist, and any other slur of your choice against you. You will be called an intolerant and hateful because of it, while Althouse pretends it's all sugar and spice.

Methadras said...

erry said...

Does any commenter here (other than me) actually know the definition of the word 'bigot'?
People on the left are bigots. They have bigoted opinions on every issue of public policy, usually anti-religious bigotry.


Yes, I know what bigotry is. I see it practiced by the left every minute of the day and it is ignored ad nauseum.

Terry said...

Awfully nice of these 'government' fellows to decide what the definition of marriage is, isn't it?

jr565 said...

Ann Althouse wrote:
Support rights for others. Support the culture that believes rights are real and important, and expect other people to support you when your rights are at stake.

this assumes that people who don't support gay marriage don't support the culture that believes rights are real and important. Do you, who says society can restrict marriage to only include two people, even though there are people who think marriage should include more than two people not support that culture that believes that rights are real and important.

Clearly, there is a difference of of opinion as to what constitutes a right and what that right constists of and how that right is derived.
Saying, if you don't feel gay marriage should be legalized then you don't support rights, is ultimately as meaningless a me saying if you don't feel polygamous marriage should be legalized then you don't support rights.

Terry said...

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

creeley23 said...

Ever since Christians realized Jesus probably wasn't returning next week, they've been doing a complex dance of holding to transcendental values while living in flawed, temporal human societies.

Ann's selective quote from Jesus can be used to shut down Christians from taking any moral stand in this world -- from opposing the Nazis to supporting civil rights for blacks in the sixties.

Outright slavery was normal in New Testament times and neither Jesus nor Paul took a stand against it. This world will never be perfect, it is not our home, and the real prize is God's Kingdom.

So what business is it Christians to pass judgment on the behavior of others and strive for a society that fits Christian values? They should focus on their own faults, as Ann is so fond of pointing out, when it fits her values.

Terry said...

Marriage, as a civil institution, was grafted onto the pre-existing religious institution. You can't cut away the foundation of marriage without destroying it -- or replacing it with another institution.
Government is not the source of transcendent truth.
Except in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Terry said...

You're right, Creeley23!
I hereby withdraw my religiously based objection to slavery.

Smilin' Jack said...

ADDED: Remember that Jesus said:
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged...


Ah, that Jesus. Always the hypocrite.

Bender said...

Althouse the ignorant bigot, ignoring what Cardinal Dolan just said so that she can go on yet another confused hateful rant, strikes again.

creeley23 said...

Support rights for others. Support the culture that believes rights are real and important, and expect other people to support you when your rights are at stake.

And this is the trick Althouse and gay marriage keep pulling. They redefine marriage behind the scenes and then, alley-oop, it becomes a right that gays are being denied and those who oppose gay marriage are opposing civil rights.

This is intellectually dishonest. If gay marriage advocates want to have a discussion about redefining marriage, then let's have it, but no, we are not going to start the discussion of gay marriage with gay marriage already assumed.

Smilin' Jack said...

""Sometimes by nature, the Church has got to be out of touch with concerns, because we’re always supposed to be thinking of the beyond, the eternal, the changeless...""

Like the sun going around the earth. We know they got that right, and that gives us confidence in their pronouncements on more mundane matters.

Terry said...

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged.
The context of this was Christ explaining the difference between the old testament and the New.
I, for one, vow never to judge anyone by the laws of Leviticus!

Saint Croix said...

It's not that it's "hateful bigotry." It's that it is a govt action that lacks a rational basis.

Recognizing marriage as an institution for the raising of children lacks a rational basis?

Really?

n.n said...

We routinely classify behaviors for rejection, tolerance, and normalization. We reject lethal behaviors without cause. We also reject involuntary exploitation and fraud. We normalize behaviors which have redeeming value to society and humanity. This includes behaviors which promote evolutionary fitness (of the species and not select minority classes) and elevate the human condition. We tolerate other behaviors when they are not suitable for rejection and do not merit normalization.

Today, we favor involuntary exploitation (e.g. redistributive or retributive change), denigrate individual dignity (e.g. "diversity"), and devalue human life (e.g. reproductive rights or choice). We consider the first to be "progressive", the second to be "justice", and the last as a right of convenience.

There is a selective interest in equal protection. There is a selective interest in our unalienable Right to Life. There is a progressive sanctimonious hypocrisy which provides shelter to a dysfunctional convergence.

Bender said...

I saw Dolan's remark and was floored that somebody in the American Church actually got it.

What he said is merely a description of the New Evangelization that the Church has been engaged in for quite some time now, even if we are using that terminology more now.

And before that, the Church has understood herself to be a "sign of contradiction" for 2000 years now.

As a matter of love for others, including those with same-sex attractions, the Church wants the good for them, most especially the good that is the encounter and relationship with the Risen Christ, so that they might enter into eternal life. Those activities of life which are inconsistent with truth, including the truth of the human person, are necessarily inconsistent with Him who is Truth. To ignore those activities is to say to those others, "We do not love you. Go to hell for all we care." But the Church does love, and does not want anyone to go to hell.

Hence, the Church advises people not to engage in that conduct with is contrary to truth, which is contrary to authentic love, that is, that which is a "sin." The Church proposes this, she does not impose.

Any mother who really cares about her children would tell them to not play in the street, to not play with matches or put their hands on the hot stove. And the Church, by her nature, a Mater,, a Mother.

To say that the Church should "mind her own business" and pay no attention to the things that others do is not an act of love, it is an act of contempt for not only the Church, but for those who play in the street, who put their hands on the hot stove, who thereby harm themselves and risk not only great injury, but death. It is those who would tell the Church to ignore these things who is saying to people, including same-sex attracted people, "go to hell for all I care."

creeley23 said...

And if that log is other men's cocks, really, get it out of your eye. You look ridiculous.

And this is Althouse taking the high road: quoting Jesus on Easter then resorting to vicious caricature of those she opposes.

Biff said...

Professor Althouse wrote: "Don't oppose other people's rights on the ground that you will lose yours. Support rights for others. Support the culture that believes rights are real and important, and expect other people to support you when your rights are at stake."

I'm on board with all of that, except the last clause. Continued exposure to my own "lefty associates" - especially those who are faculty - has led me to believe that it is a dangerous folly to "expect other people to support you when your rights are at stake."

Terry said...

Smilin' Jack wrote:

Like the sun going around the earth. We know they got that right, and that gives us confidence in their pronouncements on more mundane matters.

So, because the Church got science wrong, the political state can be trusted on issues of morality.
Got it!

jr565 said...

Also, if you are going to call people bigots (and this is for Inga) please don't also say "judge not lest ye be judged" at the same time.
Calling someone a bigot is a judgment. And you arent supposed to judge someone lest ye be judged yourself. correct?
So, don't call someone a bigot lest ye be called a bigot in turn. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Calling someone a bigot is casting the first stone. Can you look into your heart and say you have no bigotry for anyone?

In the case of polygamy and incest and bigamy it's quite clear that there is some bigotry going on there. You are judging these things as wrong and denying people the ability to do them. If you aren't accepting of them and are not withholding judgment then you have no call to call ohter people bigots.

Hagar said...

Lets pretend that gays were allowed to marry and that the only restrictions are you can't marry your brother, you can't marry someone under age, you can't marry more than two people and you can't have more than one marriage at a time.


Why all these restrictions?
And as for polygamy, restrictions limiting marriage to one wife at a time is also a violation of the Establishment Clause for Moslems and Mormons and probably some other eligions too.

Bender said...

So, because the Church got science wrong

Actually, the Church accepted the heliocentric theory as quite possible early on. Galileo himself was asked by high officials in the Church to give a talk on it.

It is contemporary society -- secular, oh-so-smarter than those backwards religionists contemporary society -- which has got its history wrong. But then again, they don't really care about the truth of history. They don't care about truth period.

jr565 said...

Finally, saying "judge not lest ye be judged" does not mean "don't judge"
How stupid would that be to say. First off Jesus could not say that and yet still say he died for our "sins". If we can't judge we can't judge what sin is.

No, he was saying "If you judge, you will be judged by that same measure">
And how it relates to marriage, if you are going to judge people as bigots for trying to restrict marriage I should hope you don't als think we should restrict marriage in some way. Otherwise you are judged as a hypocrite. Althouse, inga that means you.

Libertarians less so. But libertarians are guilty of simply not judging at all as a moral argument. And taht's not moral.

Jesus also said: "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.".
Which kind of implies that there is a right judgement that can be made. That's totally incosistent with don't judge.
Jesus also said "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him."
if you couldn't judge there would be no reason to either rebuke or forgive.

Bender said...

I've said this here before, but like Erika noted above (thank you Erika!), like most things, it is totally ignored. But I'll repeat myself nonetheless --

The Catholic Church has supported the sciences throughout the centuries. It was Catholics supported by the Church – with her dogmatic idea that the universe is orderly – who led the way in the sciences, including astronomy, cosmology, physics, chemistry, genetics, optics, and seismology.

Indeed, the Catholic Church was essential to the formation of Western civilization as we know it. It was the Church that established the modern university and hospital systems. Music, art, architecture, economics, philosophy, and our legal system all have their roots in the Catholic Church. Concepts such as natural rights and social equality, not to mention the idea that government and religion are separate spheres, were developed in Catholic thought.

As for the Church and astrophysics, let’s be clear about what really happened. Galileo was actually celebrated and congratulated by high officials of the Church for his theory, following Copernicus, that the earth revolved around the sun, and after his death, he was buried with honors in the Basilica of Santa Croce in Florence, near the tomb of Michelangelo, and many elite Florentines. In 1611 he travelled to Rome, where he was feted by cardinals and granted a private audience by Pope Paul V, who assured him of his support and good will.

It was only after Galileo, a rather headstrong person, began demanding that everyone accept the Copernican theory without actual scientific proof that he started to get into trouble. (It was not until 1838 that telescopes had progressed to the point of being able to observe the necessary stellar parallax and thereby actually prove the theory scientifically. By the way, Galileo was also zealous in his demands that people accept his theory that the planets orbit the sun in perfect circles, which Kepler and Jesuit astronomers had disproven.)

Meanwhile, in addition to this belligerent insistence on accepting heliocentrism as established fact, without the accompanying scientific proof, Galileo made a much larger diplomatic error in then going beyond the realm of science and telling some Biblical scholars and theologians that they needed to reinterpret scripture. It was only after Galileo started to tell some of the theologians their business, that he knew more about theology than did they, that he began to earn the wrath of some in the Church.

If people are going to tell the Church to keep things out of their eyes, it really behooves you to take your heads out of your asses before you continue to spew the crap you guys do. As usual, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Derek Brown said...

The "aren't I great because I don't bash traditionalists like my friends do" argument is especially specious because for whatever reason this blog has ended up predominantly being followed by conservatives. This would be the equivalent of chick fil a wanting a pat on the back because they don't put statues of Stockley Carmichael in each restaurant or Dan Savage. This site is the reverse image of The American Conservative where a site started out conservative but due to predominately liberal traffic basically has turned into little more than a site that attacks the Republcian party. It's unfortunate that the left rejected Ms. Althouse because she is obviously uncomfortable being associated with the right, but you don't get points for not offending your patrons.

Lydia said...

From Dear Prudence at Slate: My fiancée suffered a debilitating stroke. How long before I can leave her?

And Prudence's advice? Basically, oh, you poor baby, along with bits of nitty-gritty like this: "You could also use a therapist of your own to help you work through what you can and can’t do. I hope in time the days get easier."

If this is an accurate representation of how most folks think today, it’s no wonder they don’t see SSM as a big deal. It’s personal fulfillment all the way down.

rcocean said...

The whole "I don't care what you do, just don't ask me to pay for it" never works in the long run.

Eventually, enough people demand the government "Pay for it". After all, if there's nothing wrong with it, why shouldn't the government pay for it, assuming it helps some poor person out or accomplishes a good objective.

Unless you have enough people thinking abortion is wrong or against Gays suing churches for not marrying them & willing to fight, it will happen. So, proclaiming Gay marriage a constitutional right isn't the end, its just step 1 in the progressive plan.

Bender said...

You are welcome, by the way, not only for the building of Western civilization*, but also for the fact that you are all now not bowing down to Allah and his prophet.


*even if many are still keeping up the chant "hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go."

edutcher said...

Ann Althouse said...

Funny how Ann is the "voice of reason" only when she supports the Lefty view.

What you don't get is that my lefty associates tell me that I should not show any respect to people they consider bigots, that I should tell you that you are just plain wrong, that I should say clearly and consistently that you are hurting people, and you need to stop NOW. They say I am giving your side air and perpetuating the wrong and I need to extricate myself decisively from this evil.


As I said, they didn't feel that way when they thought you were taking Scott Walker's side.

Inga said...

And those people are correct Ann.

It's to Althouse's credit that she does show respect to the bigots here, in light of the disrespect they show her, the owner of this blog.


Funny how nobody just plain old disagrees with the Left, isn't it?

Give the She Devil of the SS long enough and she reveals what a hypocrite she is.

creeley23 said...

I'm wondering what is happening here, with this full court press on SSM here at Althouse. Either A) ... B)...

Erika: I think there's at least a third option:

C) Althouse likes a juicy controversy to drive up her blog hit stats. She reports regularly that her blog is the #1 lawprof blog. She does have a strong interest in gay marriage, so why not?

Indeed. Nothing wrong with that.

However, I agree with you that's frustrating that the anti-gay-marriage position has been explained to her hundreds of times, and she waves all of it off with the standard pro arguments, if you can call them that:

1) Gay marriage is a right; you're a bigot.
2) Gay marriage is inevitable; you're a loser.

creeley23 said...

I'm wondering what is happening here, with this full court press on SSM here at Althouse. Either A) ... B)...

Erika: I think there's at least a third option:

C) Althouse likes a juicy controversy to drive up her blog hit stats. She reports regularly that her blog is the #1 lawprof blog. She does have a strong interest in gay marriage, so why not?

Indeed. Nothing wrong with that.

However, I agree with you that's frustrating that the anti-gay-marriage position has been explained to her hundreds of times, and she waves all of it off with the standard pro arguments, if you can call them that:

1) Gay marriage is a right; you're a bigot.
2) Gay marriage is inevitable; you're a loser.

Saint Croix said...

The "rational basis" test, by the way, is a very dishonest interpretation of our equal protection clause. What this test suggests is that every single statute must be "rational." And if five judges say it's irrational, then they strike the statute down.

Why bother with a Constitution at all? Just strike down the stupid stuff.

Is Obamacare stupid? Of course it is. Could you go through Obamacare and find something irrational in it? How could you not?

The rational basis test is a very illegitimate and highly dangerous non-reading of our Constitution. It's obviously open to all sorts of partisan manipulation. Why am I a Republican? Because I think Republicans are more rational than Democrats. Why are you a Democrat? Because you think Democrats are more rational than Republicans.

You don't have to be Einstein to realize the "rational basis" test will lead to 5 irrational assholes saying they're smarter than you are, and vice versa.

And not only is the so-called "test" not actually a test at all, but it actually leads to strife and hostility. You're not only strking down a statute, you're actually calling the people who wrote it stupid.

Why not call it the shit-for-brains test? It amounts to the same thing.

Kory said...

Althouse: The problem is government establishing two classes of marriage and relegating gay people to a different category. There isn't a justification for that.

Hmm. So as a society, there is no justification for categorizing male/male or female/female unions as being different than male/female unions? I guess the idea is that somehow, if we call them the same thing, that someday people will honestly see them as the same thing.

My guess is that is a pitiful hope by gay people that will never be realized. Just because the government calls two males married, won't change the fact they will be viewed differently by nearly everyone.

I suppose we could start mandating that all horses be called cows as well. And in a generation or two, maybe all people will call both animals cows, thus ending horse/cow categorization. However, everyone with eyesight will still see they are not the same animal.

Methadras said...

creeley23 said...

Ever since Christians realized Jesus probably wasn't returning next week, they've been doing a complex dance of holding to transcendental values while living in flawed, temporal human societies.

Ann's selective quote from Jesus can be used to shut down Christians from taking any moral stand in this world -- from opposing the Nazis to supporting civil rights for blacks in the sixties.

Outright slavery was normal in New Testament times and neither Jesus nor Paul took a stand against it. This world will never be perfect, it is not our home, and the real prize is God's Kingdom.

So what business is it Christians to pass judgment on the behavior of others and strive for a society that fits Christian values? They should focus on their own faults, as Ann is so fond of pointing out, when it fits her values.


Which is primarily why I've pretty much have said the poor can go fuck themselves. They are the biggest single sink of money this country and world has ever seen. They are problem, catering to them hasn't been the solution. I'm done with them and their plight and I'll fight giving up as much of my hard earned labor to them as much as I can. The christian tennant that Christ asks us to tend the poor is something I no longer ascribe to. Does that make a bad or incomplete christian, yeah probably, but at this point I don't care anymore. We as a society are asked hand over fist to give our hard earned labor to tend to them and be our brothers keepers while we are being fleeced either way. Urkel and his ilk will continue to see to that.

Pope Francis and his fawning of the poor is meaningless tripe. If he was serious, he'd open the coffers of the church to them and let them have it all and then let's see how well they do with it and fuck it up like they always will and always do. Sorry Jesus, on this I do not agree with you and I think it was your biggest mistake.

jr565 said...

Althouse wrote:
Althouse: The problem is government establishing two classes of marriage and relegating gay people to a different category. There isn't a justification for that.

Except the fact that theyare a different category?!? It's called gay marriage, not marriage. The fact that it doesn't have a bride and a groom and has the word "gay" in front of it kids of puts it into a different category by defualt, wouldnt you say?
The justification for putting it in a different category is that it's not in the same category.

Paddy O said...

"Even if you think gay sex is a sin, isn't it also sinful to put time and effort into thinking about what sins other people are committing?"

That's pretty close to what the Desert Fathers have to say.

creeley23 said...

The christian tennant that Christ asks us to tend the poor is something I no longer ascribe to. Does that make a bad or incomplete christian, yeah probably, but at this point I don't care anymore.

Methadras: Christ never told anyone to support a welfare state. He had no advice at that level. He spoke to his followers directly and left it up to them to figure out what to do with their lives.

Early Christians tried the communal approach, which made sense in view of the Sermon on the Mount, but if you read Acts, they had to give it up, because the Christian communes failed then the way communes and communism do today: many people took advantage and lived off the work of others.

Birches said...

I can't follow how civil unions are apparently segregation all over again. Anyone hetero or homo can get one. They aren't only for people of the same sex. But by keeping marriage certificates for heterosexual couples, it adds a safe guard to protect religious rights.

Paddy O said...

By the by, I think Archbishop Dolan has some bad theology there, based on the excerpted quote.

Making a distinction is more platonic than Christian. Note, how Jesus in Mt 25 connected the two--the present concerns and the eternal concerns. If you're concerned about the eternal, you're concerned about the immediate.

At the same time, it's difficult to go from a few decades ago where nobody would have thought about gay marriage as a credible cause to OMG Absolute Human Right!

Most human rights are acknowledged as such for centuries before there is such affected moral outrage against opponents. Which puts the shoe on both feet (two shoes), with what Jesus said. There's absolute moral judging going on with both sides. Each is claiming a higher vision of humanity.

wyo sis said...

Without reading the comment thread, because I'm busy, but want to put in my two cents worth.
I just want to say I am perfectly happy, thrilled even, to never think about another person's sexual life. I would love it and be very grateful if they would quit talking about it all the time and making me and my kids and grand kids listen to a bunch of stuff that is none of out business and that we don't want to hear about.
Take your sexual practices away from the public forum and let us live in peace. I certainly won't go after you and try to change you as long as you leave me and my family out of it.
Now let's talk about something else. I suggest the economy as a start.
But not until tomorrow. I have family here right now. Have a great day.

garage mahal said...

We're being told to shut up, fascist style, by someone that invites us to comment freely on their blog!

creeley23 said...

The justification for putting [gay marriage] in a different category is that it's not in the same category.

jr565: You're right of course, but this is the issue that Althouse never addresses. She always starts with marriage redefined as a category between any two citizens, not necessarily a man and a woman.

But if marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, then there can be no infringement of a right to marry someone of the same sex.

Now, we could as a society redefine marriage to include gay relationships, just as we could -- as you point out -- redefine marriage to include polygamous relationships.

I'm open to those discussions, but I for one am not going to start with that gay marriage assumed as a right.

rcocean said...

"Why bother with a Constitution at all?"

5 Supreme Court Justices agree.

Bender said...

When the prefect of Rome demanded that the Church hand over her riches, after Pope Sixtus had been martyred, the deacon Lawrence brought before him the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the suffering, saying that these were the treasures of the Church.

In turn, from all of the many hospitals, schools, and charitable organizations that the Church operates, whatever funds that people voluntarily give to the Church are applied toward those human treasures all around the world -- most especially those persons whom the enlightened secularists treat like trash to be thrown away in the garbage.

Roger J. said...

Garage: you broke the code!

PianoLessons said...

If I and my partner announced publicly that we were all about Sado-Masochistic bondage sex to our workplace - and if we wanted to advocate for others to join us in our bedroom antics - and we wanted to parade our way of having sexual pleasure among consenting adults - and we wanted to have special legal protections and assurances that we will not be treated in a grievous or unequal fashion - we have no problem at all about being legally married.

Culture gets to decide here. Not the law or government.

What makes the Catholic position about all of this is their firm insistence that marriage is a union forged to procreate our human race,

Procreation - in every way, shape and form - is the key. The Catholic position is wonderfully consistent about cloning, eugenics, abortion for convenience or abortion over a deformed fetus, contraception....all the Catholics have ever said is that sex is about having babies.

Nature. Biology. Species procreation.

It is so simple to be a Catholic because they are so darn consistent.

If two consenting sadomasochistic,bondage loving people decide to procreate - or not to - this is where the Catholic Church kicks into full gear.

They could care less about the bedroom pleasures....of anyone.....but they do care about what happens with procreation.

No one can argue about this one. It's just.....you know....been out there for years and it will not change.

PianoLessons said...

Oh - I forgot to mention that....given my reductive argument about the Catholic position on both homosexuality and gay marriage...

two men can't biologically (and naturally without technology - yet) produce a child.

Nor can two women.

Catholics are far more rooted in naturalism and biology than many know.

Naut Right said...

Chritians used to ignore the sexual activities of gays. Then they came out of the closet and made a big deal of that. There is no let up of volume or intensity, either. Now you want us to ignore it. Howz about we call a truce. You (gays) shut up and we'll shut up.

somefeller said...

And if that log is other men's cocks, really, get it out of your eye. You look ridiculous.

Wow, I check in after a lovely day spent in Easter services and a nice brunch with the family and I see all sorts of mayhem has broken loose. Anyway, it's good to see that the proprietor of this blog is sticking to her guns on this issue and trying to encourage the savage heathens to convert or surrender. The missionary inclination is a good one and these lessons are for their own good. Happy Easter!

Paco Wové said...

Just so you know, the paragraph starting with "I wonder if a solution ..." is possibly the silliest thing you've ever written. It's like you've never had any exposure to any religious belief or doctrine at all, which I find hard to believe. I don't agree with all that god-bothering nonsense, but at least I understand that religious opposition to SSM is based on more than just being squicked out by two guys kissing.

AprilApple said...

Since the 80's I have been a voice of support for my gay friends. I witnessed quite a bit of gay bashing back them. I have always stood up for my gay friends. I am happy to see progress and acceptance towards the gay community at large.
I don't condone a promiscuous lifestyle (I'm not talking about gay sex, but rather highly promiscuous sex – which is a large part of gay male lifestyle) but then I hold that same standard for straight people. In the age of STDs and AIDS and reckless negative emotional behavior, it seems we are not allowed to keep sex special at all. Hollywood and the elite cultists from on high insist we cannot.

I see traditional religious people show respect and understanding (read Ann’s link) towards gays, and I am glad to see it. I do not see the homosexual community show the same respect back.
Instead we see what is happening now - the anti-tolerant, anti-religious leftwing mob screaming that everyone who doesn’t agree /fall in line about the definition of marriage is a bigot. So many leftwing/gay voices are angry, hate-filled and hypocritical to an absurd degree. And they have the audacity to tell us it’s all about love? OK.
It seems to me they really do not care about “marriage” so much as they want to stick it to the church, stick it to those who hold traditional values about family, raising children and biblical teachings.
If you hate religion so much, why do you want to force yourself inside it?
Again, the left’s radical intolerant behavior doesn’t inspire me to want to help them. And that is sad.

Civil unions as marriage -- Now if you accept that, even if you are gay and agree to civil unions, you are trashed, called a bigot, purged and ostracized. Pushing to far...

Stephen A. Meigs said...

No, it is not sinful to consider whether other people are committing sodomy. If one views sodomy as addictive, it is caring benevolence to try to rescue people who are addicted to being sodomized. It is true that I tend to care more about females being sodomized than males being sodomized, partly because I think the former more of a problem. And, yes, sometimes a male might feel he wants to rescue a female whom he might want to have clean sex with, which could present a selfish motive. But that doesn't mean it is bad. A parent might want to rescue a child from addiction to being sodomized because his being half like her gives her a selfish motive. So what? Sometimes what is in one's self interest is nevertheless the right thing to do. I mean, there's a reason why in the fairy tales, after the guy saves the girl, he gets her: because in reality addicted people feel so embarrassed about people rescuing them or trying to rescue them, they often show heartless ingratitude, and so when no addiction actually is working, as in a (purely fairy) tale, an extra-heaping of gratitude from the damsel feels about right. In actuality, rescuing people or trying to rescue people from an addiction to sodomy or anything else tends to be a mostly thankless task.

If a male is in a relationship with a female who has been abused, and who may in consequence be a little skanky in her desires, there is a sense in which it is not appropriate to dwell on the feelings one might have should she exhibit skanky feelings. No mistake, the male shouldn't pander even a bit insofar as engaging in skankifying behavior, but imagining her as a clean person is a more sexually loving thing to do--feelings matter. Imagining sodomy indeed might be somewhat polluting to feelings when actually having sex or when in romantic reverie. But that is different from not putting time and effort into considering what she needs to be rescued from.

It's important to distinguish having loving feelings for a girl from having respect for her. People confuse males altering their loving feelings with males altering their respect feelings. For a male to try to control a female by adjusting the extent to which he "rewards" with respect and "punishes" with shame is sheer madness. Just telling a woman trying to shame you to get you to clean up that maybe she is messy, too, (as can happen, because people have a natural often crazy tendency to try to get back at people by doing to them what they are doing to you) is to risk some sort of dangerous highly pyrotechnic explosion, in my experience, just because the criticism may (often rightly) not seem to her made for a totally just rational reason (but just because a slight tendency toward revenge felt right). Sometimes sodomizer type people try to shame females if they no longer think they can get them; rapists, in particular, will do this by way of trying to encourage the female to think the rape was her fault. Anyway, for a decent male to respect a female otherwise than what he honestly feels she deserves is a big mistake (though it is often expedient to keep one's thoughts to oneself, shaming being such a thankless task).

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

And if that log is other men's cocks, really, get it out of your eye. You look ridiculous.

Wow, I check in after a lovely day spent in Easter services and a nice brunch with the family and I see all sorts of mayhem has broken loose. Anyway, it's good to see that the proprietor of this blog is sticking to her guns on this issue and trying to encourage the savage heathens to convert or surrender. The missionary inclination is a good one and these lessons are for their own good.


Some phony folksy envisions himself on the same right side of history as Christopher Dodd did when he said we shouldn't opposed the spread of Communism in Africa.

And Ann has been far less hysterical and absolutist than many of the Lefties. Again, some phony folksy shows us Bell&Howell is not defunct yet.

CWJ said...

Althouse's objection to civil union appears to boil down creating two classes of marriage. If the rights and responsibilities are identical, I call bullshit. Now who's fixating on a word and not the substance. If social conservatives were "stupid" to try to preserve the word marriage, it's equally stupid to reject the word union; unless you need to leave the gate open for some possible future agenda.

As for the strong protection of the first amendment, I find trust us trust me assurances like this unconvincing. We already live in a country where successful assaults on the margins of the bill of rights are numerous. I don't need to invite anyone else to throw another siege ladder against the wall.

Skyler said...

Ann, so if you're worried about cocks being in the Cardinal's eye, I think it might be more appropriate to point out your own bias. If you had raised your son better, perhaps with a stable family, perhaps he wouldn't be eye-balling so many cocks himself. At least the Cardinal is not literally eye-balling cocks, and the term is merely your own strange insulting perversion of his belief.

I'm not in the least bit christian, but I hardly think it is an appropriate debating technique to accuse the Cardinal of being obsessed with cocks.

Pogo said...

Thanks for all the fish, Althouse.

But I do not need more sermons about my sins against leftism. They are many, relentless, and tiresome; from media to school to state. Now here.

So it goes.

Anglelyne said...

The problem is government establishing two classes of marriage and relegating gay people to a different category. There isn't a justification for that.

Sez the fuck who? The View from Nowhere, I guess. Astonishing how a person of your intelligence can not get at all the foundations of the opposition.

If an intelligent person unfamiliar with Althouse chanced upon this post, and had only this post to judge by, they would dismiss the writer as a garden-variety airhead mindlessly babbling today's Facebook Top 40 Fashionable Social Poses.

A-fucking-stonishing. When you become indistinguishable from Inga...

creeley23 said...

Wow, I check in after a lovely day spent in Easter services and a nice brunch with the family and I see all sorts of mayhem has broken loose.

somefeller: Not mayhem, most of it has been courteous substantive debate on the topic. However, it is mostly the pro-gay-marriage folks who pull the discussion into the gutter with cries of "Bigot!" and Althouse's disgusting image that you relish requoting:

And if that log is other men's cocks, really, get it out of your eye. You look ridiculous.

It seems hypocritical of Althouse that she quotes Jesus on not judging others then judges others herself with zesty disgust. You too.

PianoLessons said...

Althouse = If anyone tried to shut up my thinking things through....or warned me....or gave me advice that included shutting up on critical thought...if anyone in my life ever said to me

"that I should say clearly and consistently that you are hurting people, and you need to stop NOW. They say I am giving your side air and perpetuating the wrong and I need to extricate myself decisively from this evil."

Well - I would discount them as Orweillian mind and language shapers and have little more to do with them outside polite faculty meeting exchanges.

In other words - Go to Hell you Speech Police!

AprilApple said...

The angry backlash is exhausting.

Who in our pop culture is more compelling and inspiring?
Ellen DeGeneres
-or- Rosie O'Donnell/Andrew Sullivan?

I'll go with Ellen.

Paco Wové said...

"What you don't get is that my lefty associates tell me"

Ever stop to think that you associate with nasty, fucked-up people?

Not saying that you do. But some days you sound like you're so deep into your Madison bubble that you couldn't see out if you tried.

Saint Croix said...

The Archbishop, by the way, is making a very basic Christian distinction. He's saying love the sinner and hate the sin. Thus he's arguing that we need to distinguish between people and our acts.

In other words, you're not allowed to hate a person, but you're allowed to hate what people do.

It's an idea that assumes free will. You might do a bad thing, but you do not become a bad thing. Or, more specifically, God will judge whether we have become a bad thing. God will judge our souls. But man can only judge what we do, not who we are.

So that's a very important idea. And I think it's at the heart of our equal protection clause.

For instance, suppose science were to find a gay gene. Suppose there was a chemical reason that people had certain sexual desires. Or we could say this about testosterone. Suppose there was statistical evidence that people with high testosterone levels are more likely to commit violent crimes.

And the government starts punishing babies. You are locked up if you have bad chemistry. Your genes are bad, they mark you as non-reproductive, or prone to violence, or whathaveyou.

Such a statute would violate equal protection. Why? Because it punishes people for existing. It's saying, you are bad. You are born bad. You have bad biology. You are inferior.

Our Constitution denies all of this. Our Constitution assumes free will. As human beings, we are responsible for what we do. Thus our biology is not to blame if we do a bad thing. We are to blame. We did it. We're responsible.

The Catholic church says that gay sex is immoral and wrong. Why can it say this? Is it not hateful and bigoted? No. The church is attacking an action, what it considers a sin. It is not attacking the people who sin. We all sin. So the church can attack gay sex in the same way it attacks prostitution or theft or any other action the church deems a sin. And the government can punish us for those actions the government deems bad.

The only proper legal defense of homosexuality, in my view, is libertarian. I believe the argument that gay people are born different, and they can't help what they do, is profoundly dehumanizing and wrong.

Renee said...

Homosexuals acts and heterosexual acts are not private, considering the impact on public health and the remember it was the Catholic Church who came to the first victims of AIDS. So please reconsider you position that the Catholic Church should ignore homosexual behavior. If the civil law is forcing us to pretend there is no logical difference between the conjugal union (design for reproduction) and a relationship that is null and void of that, well as Catholics we will speak the truth. So no we will not step down, from that.

somefeller said...

But some days you sound like you're so deep into your Madison bubble that you couldn't see out if you tried.

It's always amusing to see social conservatives claim (implicitly or explicitly) that they are in the real world while others are in a bubble. Perhaps the real world is the world that educated upper-middle class professionals (a cohort that includes many Republicans, but where social conservatism isn't very popular) live in. After all, that's the section of society that generally sets the tone for everyone else. Plus, if the past couple of presidential elections are any guide, Team Blue has a better read on the pulse of the country than Team Red.

creeley23 said...

I spent yesterday afternoon with a European friend. He said the riots in France over gay marriage were as big as the French have had since the riots over Algeria in the sixties. He said that, outside of Scandinavia, gay marriage is absolutely toxic in Europe, however hard the European elites have tried to force gay marriage upon average citizens.

That's not the impression one gets from reading wiki, but my friend is a very knowledgeable observer. He knows American history better than I do -- I wouldn't presume to contradict him on Europe.

In any event it wouldn't surprise me if all these bandwagon arguments that gay marriage is inevitable, therefore it must be legalized now, don't betray a lack of confidence in the cause. If it is so damn inevitable, why do we have to have the Supreme Court force it top-down on all of America right now?

Gay marriage may be inevitable as the older generation dies off and the younger one grow more powerful. That seems the way to handle it in my opinion. But no, Althouse et al. want nine robed lawyers to make the decision right now.

chickelit said...

Anlthouse wrote: That's the message you don't know I am getting from people I know very well.

It's your house Althouse. Tell us to leave, but don't tell us what to think. It's patronizing.

Paco Wové said...

"That's the message you don't know I am getting from people I know very well."

I'm sorry you're sad that you're becoming uncool to your cool academic friends, Althouse.



creeley23 said...

Althouse wrote: That's the message you don't know I am getting from people I know very well.

It's your house Althouse. Tell us to leave, but don't tell us what to think. It's patronizing.


chickelit: Yes, and Althouse does patronizing very well.

Of course we have a good idea what her lefty associates are telling her. They're not much different from Inga, garage, somefeller and AReasonableMan -- not to mention our own personal "lefty associates."

...my lefty associates tell me that I should not show any respect to people they consider bigots...

And this should come as news to us?

PianoLessons said...

St. Croix - Great comment.

It's not only our US Constitution that implies free will. It's at at the core of Catholic and many other Christian denominations' dogma.

The only tweak I have with your hypothetical about a gay gene...

It does not matter at all per Catholic teaching. I wish Archbishop Dolan (I know him as Milwaukee's Cardinal - a great guy to read regularly:-) would actually say this....

Sexual pleasure always - ALWAYS - comes secondary to procreation in the mind of the Catholic Church.

It's kind of .....end of story for them.

Sex is to procreate and have children.

This is so simple - yet it astounds so many who think religious types condemn any damn way anybody gets sexual pleasure.

Catholics never talk about sodomy as sin. This is the talk of Methodists and other demographic Christian sects.

Catholics are all about the fact that sex between a man and woman is to procreate.

That's truly all their dogma and rules and guidance is about.



Paco Wové said...

What you don't get is that my lefty associates tell me...


That's the message you don't know I am getting...


Yeah? So? Just how wishy-washy are you, anyway?

chickelit said...

Althouse wrote: What you don't get is that my lefty associates tell me that I should not show any respect to people they consider bigots, that I should tell you that you are just plain wrong, that I should say clearly and consistently that you are hurting people, and you need to stop NOW.

So your lefty friends have no respect for me too? Is that how far you want to take it? I grew up there and went to school there and have friends and still have family there. I know exactly the kind of people your lefty friends are. They are good people, but they are woefully misguided here and seem on the verge of forcefully imposing ill will. They are destroying your ability to think clearly.

Maybe you need a sabbatical out west.

Paco Wové said...

"They are good people,"

They are? They don't sound it.

creeley23 said...

Sexual pleasure always - ALWAYS - comes secondary to procreation in the mind of the Catholic Church.

PianoLessons has that right. What gays in their self-absorption miss is that Catholic Church has bad news for everybody about sex.

The RCC also teaches against masturbation, sexual fantasies, and even sex between husband and wife if it is purely for pleasure.

Anglelyne said...

creeley23: I spent yesterday afternoon with a European friend. He said the riots in France over gay marriage were as big as the French have had since the riots over Algeria in the sixties.

Not that you'd know much about it from reading the anglophone papers of record. Or some of the francophone, for that matter. It's just a few "far right extremists" causing a ruckus, lol, move along, nothing to see here. Sound familiar?

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Renee said...

Progressive liberalism is as dead as social conservatism. See the use of drones in warfare and the gift to Monsanto that Obama gave. Progressives have no power, while minorities are under undue stress due the breakdown of the family. Where are those Democrats now?

You're right it is team blue vs team red, there are no political thinking just taking sides on a color.

Nathan Alexander said...

Ann Althouse said:
What you don't get is that my lefty associates tell me that I should not show any respect to people they consider bigots, that I should tell you that you are just plain wrong, that I should say clearly and consistently that you are hurting people, and you need to stop NOW. They say I am giving your side air and perpetuating the wrong and I need to extricate myself decisively from this evil.


Why should it matter what your associates say?

Isn't the proper response to speech you don't like more of your own speech?

Why are you not lecturing your associates about their betrayal of free speech principles?

Why are u using Alinsky tactics on your readers instead of on your associates?

Nathan Alexander said...

In fact, Ms Althouse, why are you feeling any pressure at all?

Nathan Alexander said...

It is fascinating to me to see dozens of well-reasoned, logical, reasonable, consistent arguments against SSM, and then see Ms Althouse (and Inga) dismiss it with no reason, no logic, no thought, and pretty much a long-worded version of "H8ers!"

Paco Wové said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paco Wové said...

"...the use of drones in warfare and the gift to Monsanto that Obama gave."

If I were a more conspiracy-minded person, I'd wonder if the mighty lefty propaganda machine was banging on the SSM drum day after day to distract from the actual base-displeasing attempts at governance by the administration.

But I'm not, so I'm sure it's just the usual sausage-making.

Nathan Alexander said...

Final thought:

SSM isn't a right, it is fashionable.

You don't have to (can't!) explain fashion. You just slavishly adhere to it if all your associates do, and ruthlessly denigrate or mock those who don't.

That's the only way to not let anyone know you aren't smart enough to see the "emperor's new clothes," right?

PianoLessons said...

creely23: Well - I don't know if you are a Catholic or not but my Catholic Church teaches sexual pleasure between a man and woman is paramount to a good marriage. Many, many Catholic churches have counseling and retreats for married couples devoted to this belief.

Also - the Catholic Church has no official nor - in my experience based on anecdote - teaching against masturbation.

You really just can't throw out thing you have heard or read on the internet about the Catholic Church without....you know....evidence of any kind.

I'm just saying - back up what you say or we probably won't believe you. Heresay baloney sausage, my friend,


chickelit said...

It is fascinating to me to see dozens of well-reasoned, logical, reasonable, consistent arguments against SSM, and then see Ms Althouse (and Inga) dismiss it with no reason, no logic, no thought, and pretty much a long-worded version of "H8ers!"

This is out of character for Althouse but completely consistent with Inga. And Inga's even informative and funny at times.

Lydia said...

The pro-SSM folks here love to talk about how the majority of Americans now support SSM and, so, case closed.

But I'm wondering just how firm that support is, especially among minorities, who were most likely heavily influenced by Obama in their newfound support of it:

From a Washington Post 2012 election analysis piece:

"The largest shift came from black women, of which 59 percent now support gay marriage, compared to 42 percent of black men — a huge gender gap.

That’s a big turnaround from recent years. In 2008 and 2009, a Pew Research Center survey showed just 28 percent of African Americans and 39 percent of Latinos backed gay marriage. And by 2010, support in those communities was rising slower than it was among whites.

The exit polls suggest both groups have now moved in large numbers toward supporting gay marriage. Their shifts may not be bigger than other demographics, but the fact that they are shifting at all (after sticking to their opposition) is what’s really significant here.

And given their affinity for President Obama — 93 percent of African Americans and 71 percent of Latinos voted for the president — it’s not unreasonable to think that his support had an impact."

If the kind of reaction we're seeing in France starts to grow and we have some truly open discussion of what traditional marriage is, I think it's possible these groups might shift back to their original views on SSM.

(Yeah, I'm a dreamer.)

Renee said...

The Democrats are not the left, they are controled by financial powers much like republicans. Think media/entertainment monopolies... follow the money. That is who they answer to. Why are all these businesses involved in the push for same-sex marriage?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The RCC also teaches against masturbation, sexual fantasies, and even sex between husband and wife if it is purely for pleasure.

Granted, it has been a long time since I was in formal catechism, but I recall that sexual pleasure between a husband and wife was not discouraged. It was a good thing to strengthen the bonds of a loving relationship. Masturbation was considered wrong in that it could be a direct attempt to thwart the sex act...and is rather selfish to boot. Sexual fantasies, I don't recall much attention to those except for those fantasies that were regarded as sinful, such as pedophilia, S&M stuff.

But sex for fun and sex for pleasure between a husband and wife were not taught against. Maybe things have changed in the church. But I doubt it.

creeley23 said...

my Catholic Church teaches sexual pleasure between a man and woman is paramount to a good marriage.

PianoLessons: Note that I specified sex purely for pleasure.

Sure, sexual pleasure can enhance the marital bond as well as open the way for a child, and the RCC is fine with that. But sex conducted solely for pleasure, just to scratch an itch, is as disordered as gay sex or masturbation, even if between a man and wife.

I'm an ex-Catholic and I discuss these matters with an old friend who remains a very strong Catholic and that's what he says.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

But some days you sound like you're so deep into your Madison bubble that you couldn't see out if you tried.

It's always amusing to see social conservatives claim (implicitly or explicitly) that they are in the real world while others are in a bubble.


Riiight. The only place where Communism still works, the vaunted ivory tower where all of Choom's failed policies originated, is real life.

Perhaps the real world is the world that educated upper-middle class professionals (a cohort that includes many Republicans, but where social conservatism isn't very popular) live in.

Oh, that explains how everyone lives like the Os and the Congresscreeps.

Some phony folksy likes to see himself as part of that crowd and fancies himself of of the social arbiters.

All the while doing it from Mom's basement.

After all, that's the section of society that generally sets the tone for everyone else.

Of course, rap began with the 1%. As did serial parentage without marriage.

Plus, if the past couple of presidential elections are any guide, Team Blue has a better read on the pulse of the country than Team Red.

No, it just means Team Blue needs to steal votes on a massive scale to eke out even a narrow win.

PianoLessons said...

Creely23 and Angelyne:

Thousands protest gay marriage in France last week 2013:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/mar/25/france-anti-gay-marriage-police-video

Many estimated the anti-gay marriage crowds in France this week to be 3000,000.

http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2013/03/25/anti-gay-protest-in-france-about-homophobia-or-hunger/

http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/52163/anti-gay-marriage-protest-paris-turns-violent-video

creeley23 said...

From the Guardian:

An official with the Paris police headquarters said two people were arrested and no injuries were reported. The official estimated that 300,000 people took part in the march, slightly fewer than in a similar march in January. Organisers estimated more than 1.2 million people took part, more than in the January protest.

Polls indicate a shrinking majority of French voters back gay marriage but are less enthusiastic about adoption by same-sex couples.

Frigide Barjot, the stage name of an activist who has led protests against the bill, said the anti-gay marriage movement was not a lost cause. "It's the second round, sir. It's not the last battle."

The Godfather said...

The contention by the 9th Circuit, which Prof. Althouse seems to buy, is that the only reason that a government would not allow a gay couple to "marry", while allowing them the same rights as married people through a civil union, is anti-gay bigotry. But that's not correct. Another reason for such a stance is that the society understands "marriage" to mean a union between a woman and a man. It has meant that throughout the history of this country, and throughout the history of Western civilization from which our culture springs. Even the classical Greeks, some of whom respected same-sex relationships, did not regard such relationships as "marriage".

(If I'm wrong about my understanding of social history, I trust someone will correct me.)

I believe that in our society we should broaden our understanding of marriage, to include same-sex couples who wish to commit to each other for a lifetime ("'til death do us part") relationship and (in some cases) raise children together. I know couples who are doing this, but are not called "married" by the government. I would like that to change.

But I recognize that calling such a relationship "marriage" would be doing a new thing. And being unwilling (or not yet ready) to do a new thing doesn't make someone a "hateful bigot".

I infer (perhaps I infer wrongly) that Prof. Althouse feels particularly strongly about this issue because she has a gay family member. If so, it is surely understandable that she is passionate about gay rights (and the vile anti-gay slurs one sees occasionally on this site are particularly rude, if the commenters are aware of the fact).

But the way to promote acceptance of gays and lesbians and their relationships is not to call those who don't yet accept them "hateful bigots". And it is not to use the Supreme Court to impose a status over the sincere objections of the members of the society. We should instead argue rationally to persuade people to understand and respect a form of relationship that has hitherto seemed to them to be foreign and exotic.

Obviously, there are those (some are commenters on this blog) who will never be persuaded, but I believe that most Americans can be so persuaded in the fairly near future, if we stop hectoring and start making rational arguments.

PianoLessons said...

The Florida Catholic newspaper columnist, Amy Welborn-Vinin, writes:

"To put it rather bluntly, the parts (i.e., our genital parts) were made to fit and fit for a purpose...namely, the creation of a family in both the physical and spiritual sense. The purpose of genital sex is to create communion between a man and a woman (more specifically between a husband and a wife) and to procreate new life. Homosexual acts can never fulfill the twofold design of the Creator for genital sex."

PianoLessons said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
creeley23 said...

It is fascinating to me to see dozens of well-reasoned, logical, reasonable, consistent arguments against SSM, and then see Ms Althouse (and Inga) dismiss it with no reason, no logic, no thought, and pretty much a long-worded version of "H8ers!"

Nathan A: Likewise.

I participate in blogs not only to get my own deathless prose out into the world, but to see how well various arguments work.

I too am fascinated to discover the near-total inability of pro-gay-marriage advocates to debate the issue without begging the question (using the conclusion of gay marriage as their premise) or resorting to the bandwagon fallacy.

Oh yes, and with the large side order of personal attack: Bigot!

PianoLessons said...

From The Catholic Church Teachings on Sexual Morality:

Thirdly, the Church strongly condemns all forms of "gay-bashing"

and challenges the heterosexual community to face forms of homophobia which may exist in its midst. To once again quote the U.S. Bishops document on Human Sexuality: "We call on all Christians and citizens of good will to confront their own fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons. We understand that having a homosexual orientation brings with it enough anxiety, pain and issues related to self-acceptance without society adding additional prejudicial treatment" (p. 55). Hence, homosexual persons are not to be condemned or mistreated because their sexual orientation happens to be homosexual. As followers of Christ, we must love the homosexual person just as we love anyone else. Homosexual persons are our neighbors and we must love them as brothers and sisters in Christ. While strongly condemning all forms of gay-bashing the Church views with concern and opposes the militant push to pass legislation that would equate homosexual relationships with heterosexual unions socially, legally and morally. The Church believes that the passing of such legislation would not serve the overall good of society.

Darrell said...

Since we can all agree that the Sacred Gay is the sine qua non of human civilization, should gay sex EVER take place outside of the loving cocoon of marriage? What can government do to make sure that it doesn't?

n.n said...

Saint Croix:

Exactly. We need to distinguish between individuals and their behavior. The individual is not intrinsically good or evil until they act; although, we offer each individual the benefit-of-the-doubt, and presume innocence. Their actions are not intrinsically good or evil until it is assessed within a frame of reference.

It is within these different frames that we classify behaviors for rejection, tolerance, and normalization. This is why we reject far less than we tolerate and far more than we normalize. There are universal and circumstantial frames which direct our judgment.

The problem in this context is that they have distorted a universal frame and replaced it with a selective frame which corrupts their judgment and undermines their credibility.

Renee said...

PL,

As I told a family member anal and oral sex are wrong for straight people too in the Catholic Church. Simply these acts, do not fully represent mutual love for one another no matter the individuals engaged in them. That same sex love should be out of friendship, that is accepted and respected by everyone.


creeley23 said...

The purpose of genital sex is to create communion between a man and a woman (more specifically between a husband and a wife) and to procreate new life.

PianoLessons: This is along the lines I'm arguing. So if sex does not create communion between husband and wife -- if they are just using each other for sexual pleasure -- that sex act is not condoned by the RCC.

It's a fine line, of course, but again my point was that the RCC is very strict when it comes to sex, even for husband and wife.

Gahrie said...

And if that log is other men's cocks, really, get it out of your eye. You look ridiculous.

Classy way to end an Easter Sunday post about the Catholic Church.

PianoLessons said...

Creely23: You are right here - it's a fine line. For the Catholics I know - the really practicing ones (you know - not the "marry me - bury me types)-and BTW - I am not among the devout practicing ones I know and admire....

They say find the right Church and right message and outreach for all this sexuality stuff....

To tell you the truth - the great dividing line I have found about Catholics is the notion of Transubstantiation. I think you can't really be a member of this Church if you really have doubts about the actual Host being the real body and blood of Christ.

I gotta say I was rained to believe it and still do....but this seems to be a far bigger "talking point" about wannabe Catholics and believers. It always has been - since Shakepspeare's plays (and he is all over this issue in his plays -crazy, right?)

Also - I looked up Catholic teaching to date on masturbation and sexual fantasy and you were more right than wrong.

Holy Moses:-)

jr565 said...

Althouse wrote:
What you don't get is that my lefty associates tell me that I should not show any respect to people they consider bigots, that I should tell you that you are just plain wrong, that I should say clearly and consistently that you are hurting people, and you need to stop NOW.

Are your righty associates not telling you that you should not show respect to the people THEY consider bigots, that you should tell them they are just plain wrong and that their actions are hurting people and they need to stop now?

Anglelyne said...

PianoLessons: Thanks for posting those links @3/31/13, 5:14 PM. (That smug dimwit writing for the Montreal Gazette - too funny.)

PianoLessons said...

Why is Althouse concerned about her lefty friends worrying about giving "air time" to those with thoughtful, critical views over sane sex marriage?

She should send each and every one of the lefties she is overwhelmed with on the UW-Madison campus and Madison, WI in general a vintage copy of George Orwell's "1984" novel - she could even direct her audience to her money account on Amazon for the many used copies available for a penny or more.'

This may be a money making opportunity for Althouse and Meade who live on at least her paltry UW-Madison law professor salary of.....a hell of a lot more money than you and I make. I know the number but chose to just say....

Ann - do you in any sense owe your soul to the company store? How far can you deviate? Are you sure you are free to speak?

I'm sure you think so and say so publicly.

Privately - in how many ways are you restrained by PC baloney sasuage?

creeley23 said...

PianoLessons: I attended Episcopal churches for most of the 2000s and discovered that the great dividing line was the resurrection of Christ. Most Episcopalians I met in San Francisco don't believe he rose from the dead. That's just a pleasant springtime myth that may help us to be happier.

As to transubstantiation, I recommend to you the story of Flanner O'Connor, if you haven't heard it already:

I was once, five or six years ago, taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy and her husband, Mr. Broadwater. (She just wrote that book, A Charmed Life). She departed the Church at the age of 15 and is a Big Intellectual. We went at eight and at one, I hadn't opened my mouth once, there being nothing for me in such company to say. The people who took me were Robert Lowell and his now wife, Elizabeth Hardwick. Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them.

Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. Mrs. Broadwater said when she was a child and received the Host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the ‘most portable’ person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, ‘Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it.’ That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable.


And anyone who has not read O'Connor's "A Good Man is Hard to Find" has missed one of the truly irreplaceable short stories in American fiction.

Michael Haz said...

ADDED: Remember that Jesus said:

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."

And if that log is other men's cocks, really, get it out of your eye. You look ridiculous.


Nice use of Gospel by a non-practicing Christian to enforce an opinion with which the quoted Gospel had nothing to do.

But since Althouse wants to quote the Bible, let's look further, shall we?

Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. "

1 Corinthians 7:2 "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband"

Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Romans 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

1 Corinthians 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality."

Althouse, you are the one who is passing judgment on those with whom you disagree on the topic of same sex marriage, not the other way around. And those with whom you choose to associate in the workplace are likewise passing judgment - calling people of good faith and deep convictions "bigots".

Why is it "other mens' cocks" in one's eye? Why not clits, or is your passion for the gay cause blinding you?

Good and decent people believe that marriage is a religious sacrament between a man and a woman. Honor that. Respect that. Start a dialog with that premise. Then move on to how civil unions can be created to protect the legal rights of same sex couples.

After the Obama administration showed massive disrespect and intolerance for the religious who do not want abortions, abortifacients and hormonal birth control mandated by the government, you should understand how skeptical religious persons feel about same sex marriage becoming a state-required sacrament. Respect and honor that. It is not bigotry, no matter what your friends on the far left may believe.

Lydia said...

Two men in my family are gay, and they happen to be the members of my family I’ve been closest to all my life. But the vast gulf between our most intimate takes on life is always there, and colors everything. Just plain makes me sad.

So I can see why others with gay relatives and friends, and especially those with gay children, will try anything to bridge that gulf. Blur the distinctions as much as possible. Maybe gay marriage will do this for them, but I doubt it.

somefeller said...

And don't forget Leviticus 11:9-12: "These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

God hates shrimp!

Michael Haz said...

It is nonsense, by the way, that same sex couples cannot get married in Wisconsin.

I have attended three same-sex weddings, all in the Milwaukee area.

The first, some 15 years ago was in the male couple's back yard. A minister officiated. Their guests included several gay couples and lesbian couples who also had been married.

The second, three years ago was in a Protestant church in Milwaukee. A minister officiated. I work with one of the two women who were married.

The third was two years ago in likewise in a Protestant church in Milwaukee with a minister officiating. I also work with one of the women in this couple.

creeley23 said...

Jesus also recommended to his male followers that they become eunuchs if they could handle it. Origen, an early Christian scholar, is said to have castrated himself on the basis of this teaching.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Matthew 19:12


Taken as a whole, Jesus's teachings are rich, challenging, and extremely problematic. Anyone looking to Jesus to rubberstamp an agenda is looking for trouble.

Renee said...

@ Michael Has

By any chance what readings did they use from the Bible if you remember? Did they use the typical passages or did they seek out different ones.

Paco Wové said...

Stealing a big chunk o' text from Ross Douthat:
"For 10 years, America’s only major public debate about marriage and family has featured one side — judges and journalists, celebrities and now finally politicians — pressing the case that modern marriage has nothing to do with the way human beings reproduce themselves, that the procreative understanding of the institution was founded entirely on prejudice, and that the shift away from a male-female marital ideal is analogous to the end of segregation.

"Now that this argument seems on its way to victory, is it really plausible that it has changed how Americans view gay relationships while leaving all other ideas about matrimony untouched?

"You can tell this naïveté is willed because it’s selective. There are plenty of interesting arguments, often from gay writers, about how the march to gay marriage might be influencing heterosexual norms — from Alex Ross’s recent musings in The New Yorker on the sudden “queer vibe” in straight pop culture to Dan Savage’s famous argument that straights might do well to imitate the “monogamish” norms of some gay male couples. It’s only the claim that this influence might not always be positive that is dismissed as bigotry and unreason.

"A more honest, less triumphalist case for gay marriage would be willing to concede that, yes, there might be some social costs to redefining marriage. It would simply argue that those costs are too diffuse and hard to quantify to outweigh the immediate benefits of recognizing gay couples’ love and commitment.

"Such honesty would make social liberals more magnanimous in what looks increasingly like victory, and less likely to hound and harass religious institutions that still want to elevate and defend the older marital ideal.

"But whether people think they’re on the side of God or of History, magnanimity has rarely been a feature of the culture war."

creeley23 said...

Douthat is honest that (1) marriage is being redefined and (2) there might be some social costs. Most pro-gay-marriage advocates are not nearly so honest.

This is where the discussion should start IMO.

The alternative is what we see from Inga and Andy R: both sides come out screaming names at each other as loudly as possibly and trying to get other people to join their side of the screaming.

I don't like that scenario much, but if that's the way liberals want to play it, I don't see much choice for conservatives.

Michael Haz said...

Althouse, if you believe that the scripture you quoted somehow means that people who are opposed to same sex marriage should just shut up, then surely you understand how this quote from the Bible:

6. You shall not murder

...means that killing children in the womb is forbidden. Right?

And this quote from the Bible:

7. You shall not commit adultery

...rules out threesomes, affair, and so forth, Right?

Because I'm really, really looking forward to your abundance of posts in support of the Commandments.

Lydia said...

creeley23: Is Douthat pro-SSM? I thought he was a fairly orthodox Catholic.

Paco Wové said...

"Is Douthat pro-SSM?"

I'm not sure. The NYT commenters are all unanimous in denouncing him and his column, however.

bgates said...

That's the message you don't know I am getting from people I know very well.

Wait - you're saying there are leftists who think conservatives are bigots who should be shouted down at every opportunity?

This shatters my worldview.

bgates said...

isn't it also sinful to put time and effort into thinking about what sins other people are committing?

Damn straight (if you'll pardon the expression). That's why I don't get off my couch when I think I hear my neighbor beating his kids.

creeley23 said...

You're right. According to wiki, Douthat converted to Catholicism.

I got him mixed up with the other young blogger/commentators like Yglesias and Klein who are very liberal and I'm sure pro-ssm.

Whatever Douthat's background, he is looking for a middle ground for the debate and I applaud that.

Methadras said...

Renee said...

The Democrats are not the left, they are controled by financial powers much like republicans. Think media/entertainment monopolies... follow the money. That is who they answer to. Why are all these businesses involved in the push for same-sex marriage?


The democrats are an arm of the left, the secular progressive left. Why? Because they are spending all of their time and money into rebranding themselves as not being the party of slavery, the kkk, Jim Crow, and being anti-civil rights. This notion that the money is the root of the problem in both parties is a farce. If that were the case, then why is it that American Society today has to be the target of all the secular progressive programs while conservative and not necessarily republicans are the ones to be the bulwark against them that have to give ground time and time again against their agenda? Are you really saying that the money that democrats get are to promote their secular progressive agenda, while the money that republicans get are to let them continue to do it?

If you haven't been watching the SP's aren't exactly in the losing position.

Methadras said...

Darrell said...

Since we can all agree that the Sacred Gay is the sine qua non of human civilization, should gay sex EVER take place outside of the loving cocoon of marriage? What can government do to make sure that it doesn't?


Can't do that since Lawrence v. Texas. Once that went down (no pun intended) the militant homosexual lobby went into overdrive and here we are. Shocked? You shouldn't be because even back then people called it. And if homosexual marriage becomes a new right, guess what is coming after that, polygamous/polyamorous marriage. All the while the attack on the church will continue to force them to recognize these relationships as being equal and legitimate.

Renee said...

The democrat's secular progressivism is nothing like it was just 15 years ago.

The money is the same, many large contributors give to both parties.

creeley23 said...

The democrat's secular progressivism is nothing like it was just 15 years ago.

It's hit a high water mark due to the peaking of Boomer power, the momentum from opposing Bush and the Iraq War, the arrival of Barack Obama melding the sixties icons of JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcolm X, and the victories in 2008 and 2012.

However, all things must pass. The Bush/Republican/conservative coalition looked pretty strong in 2004.

We're running out of money and the world grows increasingly fragile. There are some terrible lurches for voters ahead. We'll see how well secular progressivism looks on the other side of those.

Synova said...

I'm not even opposed to gay marriage.

I just really hate stupid arguments.

The idea that Christian teaching itself demands that the church not teach morality is moronic. It's just *dumb*.

The idea that marriage is an equal rights matter is also dumb.

Sure, yeah, I'm not a lawyer, but the Right of the State to arbitrarily define who can marry and who can not marry supersedes even clear First Amendment protections.

Now, maybe it shouldn't. I'm quite willing to say that it shouldn't. But our laws are such that we accept it DOES. And so we don't allow polygamy, even if someone's church and sincerely held belief says that they they ought to marry more than one person.

So how can it be a matter of equal protection for two men or two women to marry? What Constitutional basis that is stronger than the clearly stated 1st Amendment demands that one's emotions trump the right of the State to limit marriage?

Either the State has the power under the Constitution to arbitrarily limit marriage or it does't. I can see no possible middle-ground.

Maybe it will be right if the Court demands gay marriage on equal protection grounds, but forever after there will be no rational basis to limit polygamy either.

Not that I'm against polygamy. I suppose it's because I've had more than one friend who was into polyamory and there are quite a few Wiccans in the sci-fi community. (Polyamorists, for what it's worth, believe it's an orientation. Something different inside you makes bonds with multiple people at the same time work.) I'm sure that there are any number of existing polygamous and polyamorous family-groups that would like to be legally married.

So SSM people seem narrow minded to me. And illogical.

And as long as the primary arguments are founded so absolutely on illogic, how can good solutions be developed?

Having the "right" attitude about gay marriage doesn't auto-magically make stupid arguments into smart arguments.

Terry said...

Synova for Prez!

PianoLessons said...

Creely23 - Great post about Episcopalians and Flannery O'Connor

We could debate endlessly about her story "A Good Man Is Hard to Find" due to the turn of events where we seem to now have Clockwork Orange scenarios being enacted in my hometown city of Chicago - and coming soon to your own dysfunctional cosmopolitan areas...

My husband is a Lutheran (who taught Sunday School lessons in college when I met him) and for them, the "schism" from Catholicism is about the Pope not being the big cheese (hey - I'm Wisconsin, OK?)and the virginity of Mary.

Protestism came from the 16th century wave of protests against a Catholic Church that Luther and Henry VIII and many others found corrupt or un-cooperative with their own agendas.

Some were probably right with their grievances (especially Luther who objected to the notion that Catholics could buy indulgences to get a better spot in heaven) and some may have been wrong (as in objecting to the sensory benefits of iconography, incense and theatrical rituals of the Old Faith).

All I really wish for everyone is that they would read histories of religion in Western Civilization along with a little or a lot of Shakespeare.

Shakespeare was in the dead middle of the shift - and everything he ever wrote was about "To Be (a Catholic) or Not.



creeley23 said...

Synova: Well-put.

I can understand the desire for gay marriage. It's worth discussing. If enough people really want to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships, OK, we can do that.

But as near as I can tell, that's a choice for society. It's not a right one one can prove by the Constitution, and so far I have heard no persuasive arguments to that effect.

Either the State has the power under the Constitution to arbitrarily limit marriage or it does't. I can see no possible middle-ground.

Nor do I. As you say, if same-sex is granted, there is no principled way to limit polygamy. None of the SSM folks can argue that either.

So we're left with no SSM arguments.

We are just told that SSM is a right, therefore its denial is an injustice, and anyone who disgrees is a bigot who must grant the right of others to speak out on how loathsome people who oppose SSM are.

Besides, it's inevitable, so give up now.

However, we can't leave it up to majority rule and the future either. The decision should be made by nine robed lawyers for 300 million Americans and that decision should be made now.

creeley23 said...

PianoLessons: Even my good Catholic friend will grant that the Church has overplayed its hand at times. He's not keen on papal infallibility either, which he considers a blatant thumb in the eye to Protestants and a doomed attempt to rein in modernity.

I have never heard your thesis that Catholicism was a definitive theme in Shakespeare.

PianoLessons said...

Creely23 - There are many who believe Shakespeare was a devout Catholic and that all his plays are evidence of speaking truth to power.

Folks attending his plays at the Globe Theater had to witness the London Bridge covered with stakes of the heads of Catholic recusants who had been killed during the fascist reign of Elizabeth( bastard daughter of Henry VIII)who - like her father - demanded that citizens swear an Oath of Supremacy that basically reniged the Magna Carta's rejection of the Divine Right of Kings.

From Wikipedia:

The Oath of Supremacy required any person taking public or church office in England to swear allegiance to the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Failure to do so was to be treated as treasonable. The Oath of Supremacy was originally imposed by King Henry VIII of England through the Act of Supremacy 1534, but repealed by his daughter, Queen Mary I of England and reinstated under Mary's half-sister, Queen Elizabeth I of England under the Act of Supremacy 1559. The Oath was later extended to include Members of Parliament and people studying at universities.

Shakespeare rocks because he was all about exposing this Orwellian nightmare Oath.

creeley23 said...

PianoLessons: I'll give it some thought.

I don't know Shakespeare much beyond the well-known plays: Romeo and Juliet, Henry V, Merchant of Venice, Hamlet, and King Lear, none of which make me think of Catholicism.

Which isn't to say you're wrong.

David R. Graham said...

"@Synova The problem is government establishing two classes of marriage and relegating gay people to a different category. There isn't a justification for that."

Government does not establish classes of marriage. It recognizes them, or not. Marriage is not a legal phenomenon but a moral one. Law is sometimes moral and sometimes not. It is human invention. Morality is primal given, ideally effected changing-ly over time and circumstance by law.

You harbor Constitutional positivism - I want it to say thus and so - whereas Constitution is negative - you cannot to thus and so.

In life, positive/ground/structure always is given. Negative, the female/activity/energy end of the eternal polarity, is the battleground.

Nathan Alexander said...

Someone once talked about a fence in the woods, been there for longer than anyone can remember, and the people decide to tear it down.

They come up with all the reasons why it should be torn down, and the owner of the woods wouldn't allow it.

He said, "Tell me all the reasons it shouldn't be torn down and I'll let you remove it."

I like that parable. Someone built that fence for a reason. You may not know the reason, you might not understand the reason, but the reason still exists. So if you don't understand the reason, can't even conceive of the reason, you don't understand enough to argue for tearing down the fence.

In the same manner, Ms. Althouse and other SSM advocates argue that allowing SSM is equality.

Until they list all the reasons that a SSM is not equal to marriage (between a male and female), then they don't understand enough to argue for SSM.

Until they address the pro-marriage strongest arguments, instead of merely repeating what they feel is the strongest pro-SSM argument ad nauseum, they won't convince anyone with the ability to think independently and critically.

pigpaws said...

And if that log is other men's cocks, really, get it out of your eye. You look ridiculous.

Althouse, how clever you are. I bet your tolerant leftist friends approve. Did you come up with that on your own or was it them?

To be so disrespectful and vulgar to those who do not agree with you. Your contempt, intolerance, and lack of class, boldly on display.

There has been intelligent discussion on this topic, in this thread, and I have not once, seen you respond in an engaging intelligent way. You ignore it all as you keep posting the same thread over and over in delirium.

Perhaps you can isolate that disgusting rebuke in it's own thread, like you do Gatsby sentences and we can discuss how it is gay men who, loud and proud, put their public cock behavior out there for all to see and demand all to accept.

http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/

There is also one for the yearly Folsom Street Fair. Take the cock out of your own eye.




«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 215   Newer› Newest»