Sunday, July 24, 2011

From the Opinion Page: Homophobia on the rise in Minnesota.



Sunday, July 24
.
Blogs are just like the newspaper opinion/editorial pages.  Anyone can have a blog and express their opinions or editorialize on the news of the day.  Not everyone can be published in a newspaper, but anyone with a computer can publish themselves.  I simply publish my opinions and thoughts based upon my lived experience in a web log format.  In other words, I pretty much keep an online journal with running commentary on the issues of the day - from my personal perspective.   
.
Today the MplsStar published an opinion piece observing that homophobia is on the rise in Minnesota.  Homophobia is a modern term which is usually defined as 'unreasonable fear of homosexuals or homosexuality' although the definition is frequently extended to include 'hatred of homosexuals, sometimes leading to acts of violence or antipathy towards homosexual persons'.  That is a reasonable definition, despite how politically highly charged it has become.  One should keep in mind that there are reasonable objections one may have as regards homosexual behavior and its affects upon what philosophers, theologians, jurists, etc., refer to as the common good.
.
Language is an important political tool these days, which is why I decided to post a few quotes from an article I read in today's newspaper.  It is interesting how the author employs terms frequently used by religious opponents to the theory that homosexuality is normal sexual behavior, and/or that gay marriage should be equal to heterosexual, or normal marriage between a man and a woman.  There is almost an evangelical vigor to his words in an attempt to demonize those who oppose the cultural changes gay activists hope to impose upon fellow citizens. 
.
To be sure, violence or hatred against any person, no matter his sexual orientation is to be condemned, yet it needs to be acknowledged that homosexuals already enjoy the same equal protection under the law as heterosexual citizens do.  Obviously that isn't enough for some gay people - like 'thought police' they seem to want to outlaw reasonable, conscientious objection to any of the political, moral, and societal changes demanded by homosexual 'activists'.  I think it is worth noting that the homosexual movement is the group which initially politicized gay issues in the first place, in an effort to place their fight for acceptance and equality on the same level as the civil rights battle for racial equality of the 1960's and '70's.  However, sexual preference and race are two different issues: sexual preference is a moral issue, race and gender are civil rights issues.
.
The homophobia on the rise piece.  (My comments in blue, the author's passionate language in red.)
.
Yes, assailants should be apprehended and tried, but taking predators off the street does little to address the underlying issue: the continuing demonization of Minnesota's LGBT citizens. That nefarious project, aided and abetted by discriminatory politicians and organizations, reached a contemptible milestone with the vote to place a constitutional marriage amendment on the 2012 election ballot. And now, as in other states that have voted on anti-same-sex marriage amendments, the nightmare of escalating violence is well underway in Minnesota.
.
I was there at the Capitol when Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, introduced the amendment. He trotted out one obscure academic and several clergy members in support of the measure. One after the other laid out tortured and ill-conceived arguments, paying no heed to pesky constitutional issues such as separation of church and state and equal protection under the law, (Seriously?  Because someone is a minister or priest he is not allowed equal rights to speak?)  not to mention their own guaranteed freedom of choice regarding who can and cannot marry in their own religious settings. (Huh?)
.
I was again at the Capitol when the bill's sponsor, Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, sat before the House committee charged with saying yes or no to sending the bill to the floor for a final vote. When Gottwalt's responses failed to convince his questioners, he resorted to the favorite slogan of the amendment's supporters: "Let the people decide" -- as though it were somehow our patriotic duty to decide the rights of a minority group of Minnesotan citizens by popular vote.
.
The authors of this cynically divisive legislation deny any partisan political intent, but they are willfully and knowingly endangering Minnesota's LGBT citizens in a bald-faced attempt to consolidate their power base. This amendment is an instrument of antigay rhetoric. It protects nothing and harms much. It contributes powerfully to a culture of bigotry and homophobia that inevitably finds expression in hate crimes. By definition, this amendment is hate speech and bullying. (I'm sure I'll be charged with the same.)
.
Gottwalt said of the amendment, "This is not about hatred, it is not about discrimination or intolerance. I have faith we as Minnesotans can have a reasonable dialogue on this issue characterized by respect and decency and allow the people of Minnesota to decide." His disingenuous call for civility was apparently unheard by the man who attacked us.
.
I have faith that the majority of Minnesotans will not be persuaded to vote for discrimination. Early polls indicate that the amendment will fail, but as election-year money flows into Minnesota in support of this perverse legislation, it's crucial that the antigay rhetoric about to wash over us be challenged, its sources identified and called out, and yes, Rep. Gottwalt, that "the dialogue on this issue is characterized by respect and decency."  (The money flowing into Minnesota is support of gay-marriage and against this legislation is and will be considerable.  Don't kid yourself, there are very wealthy gay people and gay friendly corporations who finance such things.)
.
Let's choose the path leading to a world in which all of us, kids and adults alike, are appalled by homophobic bullying; a world in which hateful legislation such as the Minnesota marriage amendment is denounced as abomination; a world that refuses to accommodate homophobic thugs who attack innocent people as they walk through their own neighborhoods with their friends. - Gary Gimmestad, of Minneapolis, is a musician, arranger, composer and piano teacher.
.
One last personal comment.
.
Without doubt I sympathize with Gary Gimmestad and what he and his friend went through - these men met hatred face to face in that encounter.  It was wrong - but it wasn't state sponsored or church approved and mandated.
.
In my life I've encountered worse incidents; years ago a companion of mine was badly beaten one night when we were out for drinks.  Many years ago now, I too was shoved around leaving bars, walking my dog on a Sunday morning, exiting an elevator in a hotel, walking downtown with a friend.  I've gone through name calling incidents, spitting, contemptuous looks, and so on. 
.
Likewise I've been mocked for trying to be a faithful Catholic and embracing Catholic teaching on morality.  Even more ironically, I've been accused by uber trads and religious fanatics of being a sort of 'gay spy' or undercover activist, posting inside jokes and blog articles, hoping to change or undermine the Church's teaching on homosexuality.  I've been accused of being a so-called novus ordo liberal and closet case who just pretends to live a chaste life.  My next door neighbors wouldn't let their kids play in their yard or talk to me for most of their youth because a male friend and I share the house and worked in design.  I'll never forget the day we moved into the neighborhood and a woman walked by and hissed, "Two men in one house!  Sheesh!"  Within the next month the Seventh Day Adventist church across the street put up a poster on the telephone poll outside the house and placed a pamphlet in the mail box on the evils of homosexuality and the coming judgement.  And there I was, trying to mind my own business and live a life faithful to Catholic Church teaching. 
.
Gay friends have harassed me over the years as well. For people who constantly whine about bullying, they sure know how to be jerks.  (Thanks Penny!)  I've been gossiped about, laughed about, and a few friends have sent me porn or penis-enlargement information - and before caller ID one or two made obscene and harassing phone calls.  Yup - it was funny - not the crap they sent or said, but their retarded behavior.  So don't cry to me about homophobia, rejection, discrimination and bullying.   
.
It's tough all over.  Deal with it.

105 comments:

  1. Bravo, Terry. I'm in your corner, buddy. What I admire most is your lack of self-pity despite the hardships you've endured; especially the lack of fellowship you may experience today within the Church as you strive to live a chaste life.

    Big bear hug to you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Terry- The photo! ROFLM arse off!!!
    It has been a while since I have quoted Fr. Hardon
    "I’ve heard on good authority that in Michigan now, certainly in public schools, that the youngsters are being taught from their earliest years that homophobia is an emotional disorder. Did you know that? That homosexuality is, to repeat the word, “natural”. My God! But I’ve got to believe that I’ve got a fallen nature. Sometimes in teaching the subject I tell my students, I’d like to call it the falling nature. We’re all leaning Towers of Pisa. Except unlike the tower in Pisa, we can fall".

    They don't seem to be "curing" us of our "disease"..."He is with us until the end of time".

    Thanks, Padre.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah Terry--

    I can relate to the "single--no kids" living situation...

    If you have a same-sex roomie you MUST be gay,although in Utah with the predominate Mormon culture is is more acceptable for same sex roommates, even two adults sharing the same bedroom, especially amongst college students. Why not?? Sure does help keep the rent reasnoable as long as it doesn't drive you crazy..and LDS roomies tend not to drink or smoke or have wild parties..unless you're into that sort of thing then they can be a real drag :)

    If you have an opposite sex roomie then you MUST be "shacking up"..

    If you have no roomie then you are the "strange" cat/dog lady/guy and people cross to the other side of the street...

    Or I had a couple of well-meaning neighbors ask me if I was wodowed.. :/ Where did THAT come from??

    There is just NO solution..

    Fortunately people here dont' put flyers up, they just totally ignore me.. I could be dead in my townhouse and no one would care except when the neighbors would complain because of the foul smell..

    My life does get a bit simpler when my mom comes to visit for Christmas...for some reason that makes eveything ok.. :)

    Sign me Sara the strange cat/horse lady..but I'm really a nice lady, just ask my priest :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't know what happened to Gimmestad. But I do know that homosexuals engage in a lot of hyperbole and lying when they start talking about bullying. They have expanded the definition to include all speech and thought with which they don't agree.

    But when they go after Michele Bachmann's husband's business because they don't approve, they don't consider that to be bullying at all.

    You can add hypocrites to that sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. But when they go after Michele Bachmann's husband's business because they don't approve, they don't consider that to be bullying at all.

    Yep. Then it is all fair fame. They
    are, after all, victims.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Careful of becoming like the Holocaust deniers - gay bashing happens. People die from it.

    Like I said, the State doesn't endorse it, nor does the Catholic Church ever approve, support, condone, mandate, or teach that it is anything but evil.

    Teaching that homosexual acts are immoral is not hate speech however. Citizens voting against an immoral law are not engaging in hate speech or hateful acts. Nor are they inciting violence against homosexual persons.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Careful of becoming like the Holocaust deniers - gay bashing happens. People die from it.

    To whom was the remark directed?

    ReplyDelete
  8. With all respects, Terry, for all your extolling to "get over it," this whole post seems like a exercise in the exact opposite.

    Then again, maybe your sharing of all that you have shared has helped you do what you insist others do -- although, why anyone should simply "get over" injustice, cruelty and discrimination is beyond me. What does it mean exactly? Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not advocating that we all wallow in self-pity, but that doesn't mean that certain negative realities shouldn't be named or that proactive steps and actions shouldn't be taken to right them. This, to me, seems the most helpful and productive way to "get over it," although that's not a term I'd use as it comes across as too simplistic and rather dismissive of the complexities of human experience.

    You write: "Teaching that homosexual acts are immoral is not hate speech however. Citizens voting against an immoral law are not engaging in hate speech or hateful acts. Nor are they inciting violence against homosexual persons."

    I'm sorry, Terry, but it's not that simple -- unless, of course, one is an unquestioning apologist for the clerical caste's understanding of and teaching on homosexuality.

    People -- gay and straight -- do indeed experience the anti-gay rhetoric and activism of the clerical caste very much as spiritual violence, as hurtful and harmful. And, sadly, others' internalization of this rhetoric and activism can and has led to anti-gay behavior on the part of both individuals and institutions -- including, as history shows, the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. Could it be that unquestioning devotion to the clerical caste makes it hard for you and others to recognize and acknowledge this?

    Peace,

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr. Bayly:

    Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us the revealed Truth, not mere mortal men. HE is our truth.

    Our priests, most notably Jesuits, have heralded your cause. We have them, along with corrupt and cowardly Bishops to thank, for the fact that Mayor Bloomberg was just on CNN marrying homosexuals with two children at their side. Wonder where they "got them". It is faithful Catholics who dare not speak the truth. We will all soon be in jail and our Bishops and priests will lead us to our cells. Victim? We will all soon be martyrs for our faith. And this is not pious rhetoric. It is real.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I hate how the clerical caste encourages spiritual violence against necrophiliacs.

    And what about magic-users? Yep, the clerical caste shits on them too. And recreational drug users. Yep. Clerical caste again. Why can't those dirty priests just leave people alone? Jesus would have.

    So if the Church has been DEAD WRONG on all issues related to sexual morality for the past 2000 years, what have they been right on and how do we know?

    And Mr. Bayly, your friends in Europe are well on the way to sexualizing children and even encouraging their "right" to "choose" to have sexual experiences with adults. Of course, that will never happen here ...

    ReplyDelete
  11. As Mr Terry said--gay bahsing occurs. and yes--sometimes people die from it.

    What sometimes happens is that often simple discussions or public meetings rile up folks. Then some folks want to "take matters into their own hands." Or "teach them a lesson."

    Then hate crimes are committed..

    One event often leads to the other..

    And although it is getting a bit better, many states' Hate Crimes laws have no teeth in them..

    Sara

    ReplyDelete
  12. And in many places a "hate crime" can be speaking out against something immoral. Or speaking out against certain religions. Or offending anyone's identity in any way.

    Why do hate crimes even need special legislation? Isn't murder murder and assault assault? Isn't there something odd in adding an extra "thoughtcrime" to the brutal act?

    How many acts of rape and violence for example have some element of "hate" in them? So how can justice, who is blind, determine what is and what is not a hate crime?

    The very idea is chilling.

    Let murderers, rapists, and thugs suffer punishment regardless of their "reasons". Why does a man who kills a homosexual "cuz he hates him sum queers" deserve more punishment in the eyes of the law thn a man who kills a young woman for kicks, or someone who kills a middle-aged man for a gang initiation, etc.

    Why do we need laws that include the person's subjective motivations, and who determines what is and what is not a hate crime? You do realize that there are countries where people, including priests, cannot even say anything against the practice of homosexuality, right? Have you ever heard of the country that used to be called the UK? Did you know you can have children taken away from adopted parents if those parents teach the children traditional morality? Or that you can have your bed-and-breakfast closed if you refuse to allow overtly practicing homosexuals to share a bedroom on your property?

    Seriously, screw all thoughtcrime laws. Punish crimes for what they are, period.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maria - to everyone who is reading this.

    ReplyDelete
  14. why anyone should simply "get over" injustice, cruelty and discrimination is beyond me.

    Yeah, I know...Jesus' example is so, like, 1st century. Martyrdom? Pffft. That went out in what - the 4th?

    C'mon, Terry - listen to what Michael says. We're in the 21st century now. Bp Vicki Robinson is the new paradigm. He's a hero for the cause. I bet his ex-wife and sons are cool with it, right?

    Then, once everyone comes around to their way of thinking, the only thing left to do is convince God of the plan.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Terry: Are we ALL suspected holocaust deniers, lol?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mary, Mother of our Redeemer, we want to be faithful to your divine Son and witness to His truth to everyone who enters our lives. But we are weak. Obtain for us from Jesus the strength to live a martyr’s life in the modern world and, if it is God’s will, we ask for a martyr’s death. Help us, we pray, to face the opposition from those who reject your Son. Mary, Queen of Apostles and Queen of Martyrs, pray for us.

    John Hardon SJ

    ReplyDelete
  17. No - not at all Maria. You're good. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The following is from a woman who asked to remain anonymous:



    I hear you. In high school, they called me "spike dyke" (because of my punk hair style) and spit all over me on the bus because they either assumed or had heard I was a lesbian. My hair was so covered in spit that I was gagging and almost throwing up right there on the bus, and they all just stood there and laughed their asses off. This happened more than once. (I *was* engaging in lesbian relationships at the time, but tried to keep it under cover.) But the real "convicting evidence" was that I hung out with the one, open homosexual male at our high school. He went through HELL, even though I did too, in my own way.



    So here's the funny thing. Years later I'd be in gay bars and I'd see people from high school in there. People who gave me shit about being a lesbian. It pissed me off royally. And then later, when I had left the lifestyle, I'd be out at straight bars and I'd run into people from high school, and they'd saunter up to me half-wasted and be like "You know, I always thought you were so cool in high school - so unique, so individual - I always wanted to tell you, but I was too afraid." So you're standing there, listening to this, thinking, "Really? Did it occur to you that I had any feelings at ALL back then?"



    And here's the kicker: These are the same people on Facebook now, 25 years later, who're all superty duperty pro-gay rights and pro-gay marriage. It makes me want to scream. And then I post something anti-gay marriage and they're down my throat AGAIN, but now I'm a bigot or just bitter about what happened to me. It's like I can never win.



    I realize I'm not supposed to judge all this because we were all "juveniles" who didn't know ourselves or know any better, but whatever.



    In the end, I wasn't gay at all. Married with kids now. I could talk more about it, but won't unless invited. Not that I don't have remnants of homosexual desire. I do. When you have sex and orgasms with people of the same sex, it's kind of hard not to get attached/attracted to that. But overall - no. (The truth of the matter lies in the fact that lesbian bars always grossed me out, but I had loads of fun with my gay male friends out at the clubs.)



    Back then, in the 1980's, people gave me shit because homosexuality was portrayed a certain way by the media, etc. And now, people give shit to Catholics and other conservative Christians for the same reason - because gay marriage, etc., is being portrayed a certain way but the media. Personally, and I've been thinking this a long time, I think most people are stupid idiots who can't think for themselves. But what do I know? People tell me *I'M* a dumbshit idiot who can't think for myself because I buy into conservative ideologies.



    The thing is, when you actually UNDERSTAND the Church's teaching on homosexuality - when you actually see the TRUTH of it -there's no turning back. Terry, I think you know this, too, and I always feel bad when certain young progressive Catholic homosexuals come here and leave less-than-charitable comments. Even if I lost my mind one day and wanted to go out and have lesbian sex something bad (which hasn't happened yet in 15+ years), I wouldn't - I couldn't- simply because the beauty of truth is too compelling. It would be like taking a machete to the most beautful flower garden you had ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Larry, I find your communication style incredibly irritating. If we were conversing in a gay bar I'd good-naturedly rib you as being a "whiny little bitch," but for now I'll look past it!

    Jesus, my friend, did all he could to name the injustices of his day and take proactive steps to address them -- namely by reminding people that God is truly with them. Yet that's what got him executed by the earthly powers of his day, i.e. the Romans. Do you disagree with this?

    Peace,

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree with the whole concept of "deal with it, get over it" because life's too short.

    There are way too many homosexuals who want to whine, scream, sue, bitch, and bully, etc., and for what? At some point, when do you respect yourself and your life enough that you will stop purposely engaging in that kind of crap?

    I'm asking for it here, but I seriously believe the golden age of homosexuality was pre-stonewall, when homosexuals lived in PEACE, yes under cover, but in community with one another.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mr. Bayly, do you have a book called "A Primer on Liberal Christian Cliches, with a Foreword by Hans Küng"?

    ReplyDelete
  22. No fair, Terry. You said no anonymous comments, lol!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dear Anonymous Ex-Lady-Lover,

    That was beautiful and so well said. So very well put indeed. Particularly the bit on "can't think for oneself" and the other bit about the Truth being too compelling and beautiful to trample on.

    God bless you and your family! I'm sure you are a great mom.

    Terry, thanks for sharing that note.
    +

    ReplyDelete
  24. "certain young progressive Catholic homosexuals come here and leave less-than-charitable comments."

    I'm not sure if you're referring to me, ms. anonymous, but at least I have the courage and integrity to use my REAL NAME and not lob insults at people behind the safe veil of cowardly anonymity.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I was always taught that if you can't sign your name to it, you probably ought to keep your mouth tightly closed.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Larry, I find your communication style incredibly irritating.

    As Terry said, it's tough all over. Deal with it.

    If we were conversing in a gay bar I'd good-naturedly rib you as being a "whiny little bitch," but for now I'll look past it!

    I'm not the one who's whining.

    Jesus, my friend, did all he could to name the injustices of his day and take proactive steps to address them -- namely by reminding people that God is truly with them.

    Do you seriously believe, in your heart of hearts, that Jesus would be in support of same-sex marriage? Don't answer - I know you'll say "yes".

    Yet that's what got him executed by the earthly powers of his day, i.e. the Romans. Do you disagree with this?

    Jesus was executed by the Romans due to Pilate's cowardice, but the Jewish authorities willed it due to His 'blasphemy' and the perceived threat to their authority.

    You remind me of the apostles in Acts I when they asked Christ "Now will you be restoring the kingdom to Israel?" They still thought in earthly terms - which is excusable, because they hadn't received the Holy Spirit yet. But presumably you have the gift of the Holy Spirit, so you should know better.

    You can throw at me all the modern Biblical exegesis on homosexual matters; all the polling data on what Catholics supposedly believe and support; the trend across the world where same-sex marriage is gaining more and more acceptance; the fact that DADT was repealed and that DOMA might be stricken from the books. I don't care about that. I am not despairing about the development of such things, because I know what the Truth is as the Church teaches it. If the world changes so much in my lifetime that I get fined or arrested or whatever because I don't approve of SSM, so be it. Deo gratias. I know who is victorious in the end. I'd rather suffer with heroic virtue to the end (by God's grace) than abandon Truth just to "get along", risking salvation over false justice. So go ahead and work for your earthly victory and enjoy it while you still live and breathe.

    Except you won't enjoy it. Because despite the "data" and the "polls" and the like, you won't have 100% of people approve of it. The Church will still be standing, proclaiming that it isn't real or true or natural, because it isn't of God.

    Which makes me feel sorry for you. The vote in Minnesota may result in the change to the definition of marriage, but it won't make you happy. Initially, perhaps, but not permanently. And that's a shame, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thom, in defense of the lady, I really don't think she was referring to you. If anything, you're charitable, AND you don't come off with stuff that sounds like some dissenting Austrian priests though it up on the 70s. But in truth, you're as charitable as it gets around here.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I appreciate that, Mercury. Whether or not it was me, I get very irritable when people go on the attack without being upstanding and identifying themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  29. That was a really interesting post, Terry - and particularly your personal reflections. The whole 'Adventists across street' part made me roll my eyes as I recall my 12 years of Adventist education. Just so you know, even if the homosexuality issue had not been raised, they would have still made time to rebuke you for aligning yourself with the antichrist as part of the great whore of babylon. Via flyer, of course. Maybe you got off easy, idk.

    Anyway, as far as the piece you posted, I just don't like how these people always try to conflate civil rights with the redefinition of an institution. This Mr. Gimmestad brings up separation of church and state, equal protection, and "freedom of choice regarding WHO can and cannot marry" in on sentence - as if they are all part of the same argument. Last time I checked, there is no question as to WHO can marry - gay people can marry. The question is who can marry who (or whom?) But the standard "one man and one woman" is not discriminative because it doesn't permit same-sex marriage. It's parameters are more restrictive than that. That is why challenges to it will come from advocates of polygamy, incestuous relationships, and even people involved in bestiality.

    We've got to stop letting these activists control the discussion by redefining terms and blurring the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Larry, your problem is that you WANT to be a martyr. Just admit it. No one is forcing you or the Roman Catholic Church to change its teaching on homosexuality. No one is forcing you to marry a man or the Church to perform same-sex marriages. The advances we're seeing concerning marriage equality are taking place in the CIVIL arena. You're being left behind, my friend. But clearly that doesn't bother you as you have "the Truth" and your "heavenly reward." Fine.

    But, please, spare me your "I feel sorry for you," crap. I have a hard time believing anyone so caught up in their own perceived martyrdom can feel anything for anyone else.

    And the corker is that you really can't recognize that your whole spiel is an exercise in whining: You're so hard done by and such a victim of . . . I don't know what . . . human progress, the "dissenters" threatening your model of church, "the gays," whatever . . . that you actually see yourself as a martyr, that you actually think (want?) to get fined or arrested for disagreeing with civil marriage for same sex marriage.

    News flash, Larry: No one in the Roman church is being fined or arrested for refusing to marry divorced people. Why should it be any different when it comes to gay couples. Rest assured, you'll be free to discriminate as you see fit. That's the separation of Church and State here in the good ol' USA! Just don't expect that same discrimination to fly for much longer in the civil arena. Thankfully, those days are coming to an end. And, like it or not, Catholics are playing a major role is this transformation.

    Peace,

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  32. Michael - the more I read your comment, the more it seems to be about you than it is about me.

    And, like it or not, Catholics are playing a major role is this transformation.

    Tis more the pity. You're joining the Catholics of yore who championed no-fault divorce, legalized contraception, abortion and other ill-perceived 'freedoms'. So many headed over the cliff, and yet they - and you - are indignant at folks like me and Terry and countless others, who are called homophobes because we're not following. Well, if that's being "left behind" by "human progress", then I'm all for it.

    Believe me, I'm not whining. I'm at such peace, that if I were more peaceful, I'd be twins.

    ReplyDelete
  33. But in Vermont a gay couple is suing because the Roman Catholic owners of a bed and breakfast adhered to their moral principles and would not host a wedding reception as that would give support to something that neither they nor the Church supports. Your argument fails as these women are attempting to force people to be supportive of something that goes against natural law.

    The objective, it seems, is to go beyond legalizing gay marriage and force everyone to support gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Nan, of course that is the objective, and Mr. Bayly knows that.

    What do you think about the couple in the UK who had their B&B closed because they wouldn't allow two obviously and openly active sodomites (that's what that particular act of "human progress" is called) to share a bedroom in their building? Of the foster parents in the UK who had their fostering rights taken away (after raising over ten kids) because they taught and lived their faith openly, including their belief in traditional morality, or how schools in Europe and the US teach children as your as 4 and 5 about sexual diversity and how "gay is normal", without the parents' permission and against their objections?

    As far as Church and State goes, this is a canard and you know it. If Catholics were trying to make a law where people couldn't eat meat on Fridays, or if Muslims were trying to get pork banned, that'd be one thing, but this touches on the fabric of society itself and is very much a civil as well as a religious issue. So is polygamy and animal sex. Can you tell me, oh so progressive Mr. Bayly, just why polygamy and why interspecies marriage should not be allowed? Can you tell me why even societies where gay sex was openly practiced (Greeks, later Romans, Persians) would have laughed at the idea of "gay marriage" as a contradiction in terms?

    Can you tell me why, if the Church is wrong on ALL issues of sexual morality (although, I guess you think rape is pretty bad), then why can we trust them to be right on ANYTHING?

    And finally, many Catholics are involved in the normalization gay acts and their legitimization under law. Many Catholics were also involved in the Protestant Reformation, in the Jansenist heresy, in the abuse of indulgences during the Middle Ages, in pogroms, in Communism, in Nazism, in fornication, in greed, in blasphemy, in dishonesty, in gluttony, sloth, and in getting angry and impatient with friends and loved ones. But the question is: WHO GIVES A CRAP? That Catholics can sin and that Catholics can disobey Church teaching is nothing new - it just shows that they're human and are able to serve Mammon and the Zeitgeist instead of God. One of the first bishops betrayed Christ to his killers. And the sky is blue.

    And you do not "want" to force the Church to change her teaching, but you do want the Church teaching to be seen as irrelevant and obscurantist. You do want Catholics to ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mr. Bayly is a fast talker.

    ReplyDelete
  36. It's Far More Important Than You Think
    Posted by Ann Barnhardt - July 19, AD 2011 5:28 PM MST

    "A spokesman for Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York has stated on the record that florists, caterers, musicians/disc jockeys and other service providers who refuse to transact business with so-called "gay marriage couples" will be sued in civil court, presumably for discrimination and civil rights violations. I'm guessing that most of you have never been sued for discrimination so you really don't understand what this would mean to a small business owner. The attorneys' fees to defend such an action would be AT A BARE MINIMUM $100,000. That's a bare, bare minimum. In other words, just being sued would be completely financially ruinous, not to mention any "fine" that might be imposed. The reality of the situation is this: an orthodox Christian gal who runs a small, mainstreet florist business in New York state has now been told by the state that she must either effectively renounce her faith or be deprived of her liberty, property and freedom to pursue happiness in her choice of career. You WILL embrace the homosexualist agenda or you WILL be destroyed.

    Mark my words, they are already planning. THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.Homosexuals are going to start presenting themselves in churches which they KNOW will refuse to "marry" them. The locations of these "attacks" will be very carefully chosen in order to land the resulting lawsuits before Marxist judges. Legislating from the bench, these judges will rule that the homosexualists' "civil rights" were violated. Appeals. More appeals. More litigious "attacks". Class action lawsuits. Appeals. EVENTUALLY WE WILL SEE ATTEMPTS AT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LITURGIES AND WORSHIP. Then we will see arrests, criminal charges and imprisonment. BUT LONG BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, THE LEGAL EXPENSES ALONE WILL DESTROY THESE CHURCHES.It will begin, first and foremost, as a war of financial attrition".

    You can read the rest @:

    barnhardt.biz/

    I think it will make the sexual abuse wars look like a day at the beach...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Would that same florist refuse to sell flowers to a man who was cheating on his wife? How about provide arrangements for the funeral of a pedophile?

    It seems to me that this is less about conscience and more about being a dick.

    Not even speaking to the fact that this woman's "essay" is an amalgamation of guesses, paranoia, and misinformation.

    You're not a martyr.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thom, on a basic human level, most people cheating on their wives don't walk into the florist and announce that fact. Ditto for the pedophile funeral. I happen to know this first hand, as I used to be married to a florist and worked in the business. Much of that business is hush-hush and don't ask questions. Granted, we could figure out some of these things if wanted to pay attention, but for the most part, you're too busy to care.

    BUT it's not a fair comparison. One cannot ignore the fact that 2 men or 2 women are standing there in front of you asking for a wedding consultation.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ok. What if they had been divorced?

    Or you know that they're both Catholics and are not being married in the Church?

    I find it unlikely that a "devout" florist would refuse in that circumstance, either.

    That's because this isn't about morality- it's about "icky."

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thom: I am often confused by your remarks. As indicted by the SFO attached to your name, you are presumably a third order Franciscan. Why then are you so hostile to the teachings of the Church. I just don't get it. The logic of your arguments elude me.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Why shouldn't a florist be allowed to refuse service to whoever he damn well pleases? Whether he's a dick or not is irrelevant. If he's enough of a jerk he'll go out of business.

    Why must a private citizen ever be forced to comply with something he doesn't agree with? And for the record, if someone refused service to Christians, I wouldn't complain - I just don't have to go there. A florist provides a non-essential service. It's nit like someone is refusing water to thirsty gays. Or if I knew a certain florist didn't like white people, I wouldn't give him my business. Hell, if I knew a florist hated black people, I'd refuse to shop with him too.

    Same with the bed and breakfast. If someone wand to refuse to allow an unmarried heterosexual couple to sleep in one room, that's their prerogative, same as with the gays.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I see you couldn't answer my point, so you resorted to a personal attack. Fair enough.

    I am indeed a Secular Franciscan. My hostility is not toward the teachings of the Church, the Church that I love, btw, but rather toward people who take it upon themselves to sit in judgment of other people, especially when it is regarding an issue that doesn't concern you in the slightest.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ok. What if they had been divorced?

    Or you know that they're both Catholics and are not being married in the Church?


    Or what if they received communion without going to confession first?

    Or what if they use artificial contraception?

    Or what if they believe women should be ordained?

    Or what if they engaged in premarital sex?

    Or what if...?

    Or what if...?

    It's a stupid game that can go on in perpetuity.

    God doesn't hold us to things we cannot know, and have no business knowing.

    ReplyDelete
  44. And like it or not, gay marriage is a different situation than the other two. All situations are wrong, but only one of them is not circumstantially wrong, but fundamentally out of accord with the natural meaning of marriage itself. The divorced couple COULD be married if they weren't divorced. The other couple COULD be married outside of the Church of they weren't baptized Catholics (natural marriage vs. sacramental), but the gay couple could never be married based on the very essence if marriage itself, no matter how much people try to redefine terms. I can call blue red all I want, but it won't make it so.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thom:

    1. What is your point?

    2. I am not attacking you. I am trying to understand how a secular Franciscan can be so angry and hostile toward the truths of our faith. Hostility toward the truth and membership in a third order are difficult to logically square.

    3. Who is judging whom? We called to confer judgements about actions and behavior, not persons, when the faith is denounced by others.

    4. Homosexual marriage concerns all of us, Thom,.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Larry, two Catholics being married outside of the Church isn't a "what if." It is a situation that is easily observable.

    Maria, since you missed it the first time, I'll say it again: it is not the teachings of the Church to which I am reacting. It is the attitudes of people like, well, you, to which I react. You seem to always speak about "gay sins," but precious little else. What gives? Are you gay? Formerly gay? Have an apartment on a floor over a gay bar? I cannot understand your obsession.

    You can do what you wish, but I like to try to practice what Jesus said about beams and motes. However, you are free to make your own decision.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Thom,
    As your friend, I totally believe you when you say you are trying to understand the nitpicking. As you know, I often join you in that mission, albeit with totally different Catholic topics.

    However, I think you are the perfect person to offer a statement as to why you don't believe that gay marriage affects us as Catholics, or as members of society. Underneath all the hysteria, gay-bashing, and rhetoric that you see here and on other blogs is a real, true and deep concern for the dismantling of Church teaching, the family, and societal stability.

    For me, I won't deny what heterosexuals have done for their part in dismantling Church teaching, destroying families, and harming societal stability. However, homosexual marriage has it's part and place in their problems, as well.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Maria, since you missed it the first time, I'll say it again: it is not the teachings of the Church to which I am reacting. It is the attitudes of people like, well, you, to which I react.

    Thom:

    Again, I dont understand. What attitude?

    The discussion, at hand, Thom, was homophobia and homosexual marriage. Is there something else I should be discussing?

    As a Catholic I am called to defend the teachings of my faith.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Charlotte, that's a conversation that I would love to have, and indeed I attempt to on occasion on my own blog. However, it seems near impossible to attempt with some of the peanut gallery here.

    Next time you're in town, we'll have it over coffee or whiskey.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Maria, teachings is plural.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thom: Why are your remarks so angry, strident, and acerbic if you love the teachings of the Church? I apologize for the typo. They did not teach typing where I went to High School ;)

    ReplyDelete
  52. I'm not angry. Are my remarks strong? They are intended to be. Don't confuse passion with anger. Further, I love how you've tried to take the conversation in another direction. Why are you so obsessed with gay people?

    ReplyDelete
  53. More and more, Thom, you are sounding like an "activist". That is the MO of the homosexualist agenda: "WE" are all obsessed". Have you not noticed that it is homoesexuals who have made this a non stop, in your face, topic of conversation? I am sorry. Not buying it, my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Gay people doing gay acts is a private matter, just like fornication, masturbation, etc. What people do in privacy is between them and God.

    But the problem is that many people feel that they are now being asked to call sin "good" or at least neutral, and that to judge sin as anything else is hateful.

    I deplore the fact that modern culture also touts cohabitation, contraception, and fornication as "normal".

    But the issue here is not about people committing sexual sins. We've all done that, and it's been that way since the Fall. The issue is the redefining of an institution as something that it is not (and heterosexuals are responsible for no-fault divorce and deliberately non-procreative marriage), and the demand that others look at as "progress".

    To deny that this does not have widespread societal implications, or that people will be allowed to privately disagree ... I don't see how anyone can do that.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Maria, again with the martyrdom. Take a gander through the comments on different posts here. You're all about the gay. I'd like to know why.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Thom,
    *I'm* admittedly obssessed with gay people. So why not her or anyone else?

    The obssession comes, I believe, because no other group in society so desperately wants to disregard and destroy religious belief, arresting it with threat of jail, fines, and loss of freedom of religious expression. Not a small thing, at all.

    So to Maria, she is, I think, truly confused by your Catholic religious associations coupled alongside your pro-gay rhetoric. I know where you're coming from because I have read your old blog, etc. - and while I don't always agree with you - I am familiar with your general line of thought and how you get there. She doesn't. Just from a commbox, it IS a conflict of interest to be as outwardly Catholic as you are but to also always be championing pro-gay causes.

    I think you need to cut her some slack and see that she is honestly trying to figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Thom: Our host selects the topics mon frere.


    But the issue here is not about people committing sexual sins. We've all done that, and it's been that way since the Fall. The issue is the redefining of an institution as something that it is not (and heterosexuals are responsible for no-fault divorce and deliberately non-procreative marriage), and the demand that others look at as "progress

    AMEN, Mercury. It is all of a piece: contraception, abortion, co-habitation, homosexuality. We make of ourselves gods and become abriters of what is, and what is not, morally good. Hence, the madness of the world in which we now live/

    ReplyDelete
  58. I take your point Charlotte, and I agree to an extent. However, this isn't the first time that I have had this sort of encounter. I didn't formulate my question in a vacuum. When I ask it, I legitimately would like to know.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Terry's interest I get, Maria. Not yours.

    ReplyDelete
  60. So only homosexauls get to discuss matters homosexual?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Thanks, Charlotte. It is genuine confusion. You can't love God and Mammon...

    ReplyDelete
  62. Maria, that isn't what I said. Why are you so reticent to answer a pretty straightforward question?

    Perhaps it ought to be rhetorical.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Thom, she does make a good point about only homosexuals getting to discuss homosexual issues. You know darn well that argument gets trotted out by homosexuals all the time.

    Why assume her interest is fueled by anything but concern for her faith? And besides, what if she was a former gay or struggling with homosexuality, herself? I'd say she's a much more integrated human being than some of the other god-less homosexuals I've argued with. You KNOW what I'm talking about - you KNOW (as you recently wrote about on your blog) that there are way too many homosexuals who want to dismiss anyone who talks about God or religion as homophobic idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  64. That is precisely what I'm trying to ascertain. I never once said that "only gay people can talk about gay issues."

    I have to be concerned, however, when someone who does not personally struggle with being gay has such a palpable obsession with it. It is at that point that I tend to think that something beyond faith is afoot.

    Don't forget what I recently wrote about BOTH groups, dear. I meant every word, on both sides of it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Thirty years ago, Paul VI appealed to the conscience of the world when he warned about "the consequences of practicing artificial birth control." His warning was prophetic. What have been the consequences of contraception in one once-civilized nation after another?

    They have been myriad. But I would give especially seven, which may be listed in sequence.

    Fornication;
    Adultery;
    Sterilization;
    Homosexuality;
    AIDS;
    Breakdown of the family; and
    Murder of the unborn.
    At the risk of repeating the obvious, let me briefly show how contraception inevitably leads to these seven tragedies that haunt the modern world.

    Fr. Hardon addresses each item on his list. I will quote two:

    HOMOSEXUALITY
    The relationship between contraception and homosexuality is seldom adverted to and, in homosexual circles, openly denied. Yet they are connected by the most basic laws of human society.

    Contraception contradicts the most fundamental desire of the human heart: to give oneself in total generosity to another human being. Marital relations are meant by God to satisfy this desire between the married spouses. But if women selfishly withhold this generosity from men, men will-tragically look for such generosity in other men. And women will look for it in other women.

    As you read some of the homosexual and lesbian literature, you are moved to tears at seeing how a contraceptive society has begotten a homosexual society. In their desperate search for love, men will turn to other men and women to other women. To say they are being deceived is only to emphasize the pity of a sodomistic culture that is starving for love. Contraception deprives married people of the love that they expect to find in a marriage between two people of opposite and complementary gender.


    AIDS EPIDEMIC
    With all the published writings and statistics on Acquired Immune Deficiency, seldom a word is to associate this dreadful scourge with widespread practice of contraception.

    In spite of all the protests to the contrary, the AIDS epidemic has its roots in homosexuality. By now, of course, there are victims of AIDS whose condition is the result of other factors than sodomy. But the radical cause remains. And therefore, we should in sheer justice, associate the physical disease with its moral foundations, which is homosexuality abetted by contraception.

    See, it is all connected, Thom. Hope this helps to answer you question. Homosexuality is the last car on the train and it is about de-rail our society and un-hinge the world from all moral good, in ways too catastropic for imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I ask questions, you ignore them. You ask questions, I answer, and you ignore that, too. I'm done. Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I thought you wanted to know why the subject of homoexuality concerned me? Did I misundertstand the question? What is the question, Thom?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thom,
    I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one. There is every reason for a non-homosexual to be "obssessed" with the issue of gay marriage and gay adoption, etc.

    If they are obssessed with just homosexuals - filled with hate for them just existing and wanting to discriminate against them for basic stuff - then yeah, the obssession deserves to be questioned.

    But when it comes to Church teaching and/or concern for the stability of families in our society, I actually believe something is very wrong in that MORE people AREN'T obssessed with these issues. And thus, I think the onus is on YOU to explain why we shouldn't care so much about gay marriage, etc. Especially in line with your professed Catholicism.

    If these are issues with which you have an intellectual dissent, then just say it. I, for one, have masssive intellectual dissent with some of the church's teachings on sex and reproductive issues. Yeah, sometimes I bitch about these issues on my blog. But in the end, I always, always tell myself that the Church is more than likely correct and that the problem in thinking is ME, not the church.

    I don't think we should blindly obey that which we don't understand or that with which we intellectually struggle. I depart from the uber/trad crown in saying this. However, I don't think the way to work through that dissent it to question the motives of other Catholics who are discussing these hot-button issues in Catholic venues and who self-describe themselves as Catholics.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Charlotte: I appreciate your support. I truly don't see how any faithful Catholic could not be extremely concerned about our society, and that of most countries, who now who wish to subevert the teaching of the Church and confirm the mortal sin of sodomy in "marriage". One would have to be mad not to be fanatically onverned. When we are now teaching children that sodomy is a gift and those who don't subscribe to this premise suffer from the disease of homophobia?Yes, I confess: I am obsessively concerned, I suppose. Guilty as charged.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "But in the end, I always, always tell myself that the Church is more than likely correct and that the problem in thinking is ME, not the church."

    Amen. That's what finally brought me around on the issues I struggled with, particularly contraception. But some people (not you Thom), labor under the impression that the Church has always been on the wrong side of history. I wonder why such people even want to be Catholic, unless they have a desire to subvert and destroy. I mean, they could always be Episcopal, since you can be whatever you want and be Episcopal.

    If the Church is wrong on the issues of sexual morality, what else are they wrong on, and how do we know?

    Also, I'd love to ask Mr. Bayly if he believes in gay fornication or if gays should "save themselves for marriage". Really, I'd love to know.

    ReplyDelete
  71. And really, no one should kid themselves: the activists are after the schools, particularly the kindergartens. Maybe not as bad in this country, but it is part of the party platform of Greens and Leftists all over Europe. "Gender mainstreaming" is even given major priority in some places.

    ReplyDelete
  72. +JMJ+

    I have nothing to say except that I think it would be cool if this discussion hit 100 comments and that adding another one to their number (however pointless) seems like a way to help it to that end.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Oh Dear, Enbrethilel...I hope this wasnt all pointless, though it can feel pointless some days.

    Mercury: I have another confession to make. It may sound very strange; however, prior to my "conversion" several years ago( I am a cradle Catholic), before I understood anything, read anything or had any real lick of fatih, I awakened, literally, from sleep, and understood the evils of contraception in a panoramic sense. Mind you, I have lived a life, under what I refer to, as just an avalanche of sin.
    MERCURY--Your witnes s is a shining light in the darkness! I hope you know that...

    ReplyDelete
  74. Maria, thanks - it doesn't feel that way. I've come to accept the Church's teaching, but now I'm also deathly afraid of sexual issues, even in marriage, though I shouldn't be. And I can find all kinds of assertions and declarations from the Saints to feed that fear. Satan can bring us from one extreme to another.

    Anyway, Charlotte, if you're still patrolling here, I sent you an e-mail as a follow-up to what I mentioned to you the other day, and also another asking a question about something I read from your blog a while back.

    Maybe I should also leave a note for someone else?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Maybe I should step in? Never mind.

    ReplyDelete
  76. +JMJ+

    Maria: Pardon me! I didn't mean that this thread is pointless. I meant that my comment was pointless! =P

    At least this one isn't.

    Although I can't promise the same for any others I will leave.

    (By the way, Terry, did you see the heated debate I started on my non-Catholic blog when I brought up women in pants??? Apparently, everyone will argue about it.)

    ReplyDelete
  77. I think maybe a little Big Hair might cheer everyone up around here.

    Remember you gotta have Hart:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWzy5q_M5Ho

    ReplyDelete
  78. Terry--Where were you? We could have used a chaperone;).

    Mercury: Just ask our Lady to care of things. She will....

    E--I am frequently in the wilderness in blogdom. Thanks.

    Clark--I inadvertently deleted by audio input. Sorry. I'll never listen to another you tube video. Do you think my soulis imperiled?
    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  79. Terry--Where were you? We could have used a chaperone;) Terry, I am sorry all of these horrible things have happened to you. I hardlly know what to say--it is so perfectly dreadful...

    Mercury: Just ask our Lady to care of things. She will....

    E--I am frequently in the wilderness in blogdom. Thanks for clarifying.

    Clark--I inadvertently deleted by audio input. Sorry. I'll never listen to another you tube video. Do you think my soulis imperiled?
    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  80. Terry--Where were you? We could have used a chaperone;) Terry, I am sorry all of these horrible things have happened to you. I hardlly know what to say--it is so perfectly dreadful...

    Mercury: Just ask our Lady to care of things. She will....

    E--I am frequently in the wilderness in blogdom. Thanks for clarifying.

    Clark--I inadvertently deleted by audio input. Sorry. I'll never listen to another you tube video. Do you think my soulis imperiled?
    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  81. Sorry about the double posting!

    ReplyDelete
  82. Maria, Come again?

    Maria, Come again?

    Maria, Come again?

    Our Lady said that one day she would save the world through the Rosary and Scapular. So, say the Rosary and wear the scapular.

    "Our God is our refuge and strength: our helper in troubles which have fallen on us heavily.

    Therefore will we not fear when the earth shall be troubled and the mountains shall be removed into the heart of the sea."
    -Psalms

    So, why is everybody so uptight?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Mercury said: "And really, no one should kid themselves: the activists are after the schools, particularly the kindergartens. Maybe not as bad in this country, but it is part of the party platform of Greens and Leftists all over Europe. "Gender mainstreaming" is even given major priority in some places."

    Yup! That is happening as we speak in California. I'll be posting on a Harvard study when I get some time.

    And Catholics are not obsessed with the gay issues - well they weren't until gay activists started the assault.

    ReplyDelete
  84. What's funny is that no Catholic theologian of the past would have ever thought to comment on the idea of gay marriage because they couldn't conceive of the idea - like trying to imagine 2+2=5 or something.

    ReplyDelete
  85. am i commenter #85? we're approaching 100.

    a colleague of mine in maryland won't place his son in public school. when i asked why not (because where he lives the schools are fantastic), he informed me that they're actually providing sex education to 1st graders, showing them condoms and educating them on their uses and how to put them on.

    i had no words.

    ReplyDelete
  86. DB,
    I remember in the 80s when Catholics began homeschooling, it seemed so extreme. Now it makes perfect sense.

    Take your children's education, spiritual and secular, into your own hands.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Georgette8:21 PM

    I don't know if this was brought up already in the comments above(wow! 86 comments so far!)--but something every serious Catholic and other religious people should know is the information that a former US Department of Education employee from the Reagan years has exposed. Charlotte Thomas Iserbyt has a three part interview in which she discusses the deliberate agenda to instill in American children thru education, the communist/atheist/promotion of all forms of sexual promiscuity and perversion agenda. An eye opener:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezTIYd5UFRY


    Gette

    ReplyDelete
  88. Georgette: It has been going a long time now...

    Clark: Me too, I remember, a long time ago thinking home schoolers were wacky until my conversion and my discovery of Fr. Hardon. Hardon was trying to protect parents from "Catholic schools". Man oh man. I never leave home w/out my rosary...

    ReplyDelete
  89. +JMJ+

    And the thread dies with just under 90 comments. =(

    I obviously jinxed it.

    Terry, I'm so sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  90. This is not an important blog and we don't want to be famous or noted for the number of comments.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Yeah, but over 100 is cool. And it's not even about women and pants!

    ReplyDelete
  92. Michael Bayly--If hearing the clear and correct moral teachings of the church is spiritual violence, I suppose then that when my last pastor hit on me and tried to find excuses to touch me (I am an adult--into middle age!) and told me that holiness isn't possible without "wholeness" and I needed to "explore my entire self and affective spectrum" he wasn't harassing me, he was just being pastoral and nurturing?

    Feminista have from time to time presented fellatio and sodomy as intrinsically violent acts--I guess that's not true if a Gay man tries to get some from another male though--the straight guys moral and aesthetic objections are "spiritual violence".

    Sodomy is a sin, one of the sins crying to heaven for vengeance--and no matter how much it hurts someones feelings, the fact remains. Defending sodomy and trying to get clergy to accept it is simply defending a sin that will land one in Hell, and not to warn people is on the part of Clergy also a sin that can land one in Hell.

    Hell--now that's spiritual violence.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Ignorant Redneck, quit your whining. You're a grown adult who clearly recognized that your pastor was a creep. Tell him to f*#k off and then report him to the authorities.

    It seems as if your experience of this one creep is coloring your opinion of all gay people. And yet why is it not coloring your opinion of all priests? Do you see the double standard here? The reality is it shouldn't color your view of all gay people or all priests.

    I'm sorry, but the fact that so many good Catholics are questioning the clerical caste's teaching on a range of issues relating to sexuality is evidence that these teaching are far from "clear and correct." You're kidding yourself when you label and dismiss these Catholics as "gay activists" or "dissidents." They're parents, grandparents, folks in the pews of Catholic Churches across the nation. Many have LGBT loved ones and/or know LGBT co-workers, family members, and neighbors.

    Throwing out words like "sodomy" to describe the lives and relationships of the LGBT people they know and love isn't going to win them over to your side. Yet it seems that that is all you can do, given that you seem incapable of offering arguments that reflect rationality or compassion.

    And it is these things -- reason and compassion -- that speak to people's hearts and minds, and informs their discerning of whether a statement, teaching, or belief is true or not. It's the Spirit at work in the People of God. And the bishops would do well to start listening.

    As for your "feminista" comment, I have no idea what you're on about. Maybe you should consider providing some references when making such outlandish statements.

    And I agree with you that the sin of Sodom (inhospitality that includes rape) is a terrible thing. How does that relate to two consenting adults of the same gender forging a life together of mutual love and respect?

    Peace,

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  94. "I'm sorry, but the fact that so many good Catholics are questioning the clerical caste's teaching on a range of issues relating to sexuality is evidence that these teaching are far from "clear and correct."

    By that logic, the Arians were correct, the Albigenisans, the Marcionists, the Donatists, the Monophysites, the Jansenists, etc. as well as all Protestants are all correct. Same goes for anyone who's ever justified any sin ever.

    The fact that people have a hard time shows that we are sinful and human, and the fact that people intellectually struggle with things is a sign that though they may be trying, sometimes it really is hard to balance Church teaching with what we may think is right, or even feel.

    I do not care what you say - sodomy is sodomy, and that's final. It's destructive, and intuition will tell anyone that it's wrong. I do not deny that gay men may feel varying levels of love and affection for one another, as any close friendship between men can attest. But sexual expression of love belongs in marriage, between a man and a woman.

    Or does God bless an act of shitting and bleeding, an act which by its very nature cannot ever under any circumstance be fruitful, either to love or life? Fruity, yes, but that's a different story.

    Tell me Michael, what sexual acts ARE immoral? And before you answer, remember that rape is more a sin of justice than impurity - it's far worse than consensual acts but in a different way.

    Where in the Bible or Tradition can you prove to me that this is not just some late 20th century justification of an age-old sin, one that has always and consistently been opposed by Scripture, by the Church, and by Saints?

    How does the fact that Catholic ca be influenced by the Zeitgeist have anything to do with the reality of Catholic teaching?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Michael - Redneck is not whining - rather I think you are the one doing the whining.

    ReplyDelete
  96. +JMJ+

    This is not an important blog and we don't want to be famous or noted for the number of comments.

    I was thinking about this as I was getting yet another makeover at the Clinique counter today, Terry, and I realised something.

    There is NO SUCH THING as an important blog--even those that are famous or noted for the number of comments.

    My word! The insights one gets from eyeshadow . . .

    ReplyDelete
  97. What color eyeshadow - smokey colored?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Yeah, I wanna know too, just so the answer put the comments over 100.

    ReplyDelete
  99. 100!!!!!

    What do I win?

    ReplyDelete
  100. You win a Fr. Z action figure.

    ReplyDelete
  101. I want a Father Z action figure!

    ReplyDelete
  102. +JMJ+

    Terry (and everyone else who cares):

    I got Pink Chocolate, which is part of the Colour Surge Eyeshadow Quad line. I really, really wanted the Plum Seduction palette, but it's not available in the entire country! (Humph!)

    And no, I'm not being paid for this. =P

    ReplyDelete
  103. You win a Fr. Z action figure.

    What's it do? Drink coffee and take pictures of birds and food?

    LOL!!

    ReplyDelete
  104. It also MAKES food ... and takes pictures of it (which Jimmy Akin does too, by the way)

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.