Comments On: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally by Dominic Holden http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/04/09/archbishop-turns-every-seattle-mass-into-an-anti-gay-political-rally Comments On: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally by Dominic Holden en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 04:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> Posted by edwardjdietrich43@gmail.com]]> Fri, 20 Apr 2012 01:17:01 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> Gay Marriage Act. It is becoming more and more difficult for me to remian a practicing member of the Catholic Church. Fortunately, I belong to a great parish with a wonderful liberal, socially consci0us pastor.
I am withdrawing all financial support and redirecting it to social causes.
I hope that this petition signing to repeal the Gay Marriage Act backfires n Seattle big time as it did in Maine. Thank you to the pastors who are opting out. I guess they are more familiar with Gospel values than our leadership is.
Posted by appalled]]> Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:56:41 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]>
Seattle Blues--The end is nigh!

Everyone else--Citation needed

Seattle Blues-- *crickets*
Posted by clashfan]]> Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:14:27 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> Posted by Chapin]]> Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:47:00 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]>
I think he means 'other than Dan Savage' :)
Posted by James Hutchings]]> Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:42:59 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]>
And yet he must have found the column somehow. I wonder what google search would bring it up?

Is this column somehow connected to an activity which internet users frequently search for? :)

"Because a few perverts writing the Slog equivalent of Penthouse letters to an aging deviant pervert freak"

If something is 'like Penthouse letters', presumably that means it's arousing.

Hm. How Seattleblues found the column, and why he reads it so thoroughly, is certainly a great mystery :)
Posted by James Hutchings]]> Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:38:56 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]>
If that's so, then his praise of the Catholic church is intellectually dishonest.
Posted by James Hutchings]]> Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:31:13 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> Posted by blackhook]]> Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:06:49 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> As for dispensing sexual advice, I have contempt for that whole field of endeavor. If sex is the physical expression of the emotional intimacy, trust and love you share with your spouse you don't need the Kama Sutra or an aging pervert for pointers.Intimacy rarely makes orgasms all by itself. It helps, but so does practice, variety, and the occasional short, sharp shock.
If it isn't, all the tricks and visits to adult bookstores and so on in the world won't fill that void.
No, but it can make for better orgasms. And if the partners ARE emotionally intimate, well, so much the better.

I don't see why intimacy--physical, emotional (or both, or otherwise)--shouldn't benefit from study, practice, perspective and variety just like any other endeavor.
No attraction to other men, but I do have a genetic tendency to heart disease. Should I eat badly and never exercise since I was 'born that way'?
In what way is intimacy with members of the same sex as demonstrably and intrinsically unhealthy as poor diet or lack of exercise? Please be specific.
It's up to those who want the change to demonstrate things, not those defending the status quo. You want to destroy this country, show the rest of us how that destruction is beneficial, convince enough to adopt your view, and you might just accomplish your goals. But expect a fight, and don't expect me to defend what needs no defense.
Not even sure what it is that you think you're defending against. Your marriage would not be changed, nullified, or in any way addressed by the expansion of the pool of eligible applicants for a state-sanctioned contract that already exists.
Posted by thelyamhound]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:35:05 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> Posted by Ed Snowdon]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:29:35 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> Seattleblues - How does the legal recognition of same-sex unions "destroy" traditional marriage for traditionally married couples in any way that, say, marriages between the elderly or infertile do not. Please be specific.

If homosexuality is a choice, what is the alternative choice? It's clearly not heterosexuality, since one cannot choose to whom one is attracted, with whom one falls in love, or, just as importantly, to whom one is NOT attracted, or with whom one CANNOT fall in love; given that it's worth asking whether you see any alternative to homosexuality aside from celibacy or erotically inert heterosexual marriage. Again, define your terms clearly and concretely.

In what way is the making of progeny anything but a moral or social neutral according to doctrines other than metaphysical assertion? In what way is homosexual commitment and intimacy any less a recipe for fulfillment and social responsibility than heterosexual commitment or intimacy? Whatever details you have to bolster your argument will be scrutinized, so by all means, give examples where possible; show your work.

Would you support the right of business owners--say, myself, as a personal trainer--to refuse service to Christians, republicans, people who dye there hair, or people who think that Robert Zemeckis deserves any of his Oscars? Would you say that such refusal is legally equivalent to your refusal to do business with homosexuals? No vagaries, please; be as pointed as possible.
Posted by thelyamhound]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:26:24 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> Of course, the burden of proof really is on you here. You're the one claiming that an effect is present, that gays are significantly different from straights. Consider the following:
At the end of the Civil War, Congress passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which ended (officially) slavery based on race. By your logic, the burden of proof would have been on the Abolitionists to prove that ending slavery WOULDN'T have bad effects on the country, and to prove that blacks WERE just as human as whites. You racist bastard, eh?
Look, I'm not trying to make a case for gay rights by asking you this. I'm just keeping you honest. You've made some statements claiming certain things; I'm telling you to put your facts where your mouth is, you whackadoodle.
Posted by venomlash]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:08:51 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> "No attraction to other men, but I do have a genetic tendency to heart disease."

So you are claiming that you were "born" heterosexual?
But you don't believe that sexual orientation is something that a person is "born" with.
How is that possible?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:17:51 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]>
Again, you fail to provide anything that shows that allowing gay people to get married causes "generational destruction of marriage." Have you ever met a straight person who said they were getting a divorce because gay people can get married? Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate, yet gay marriage is legal there. Allowing gay marriage doesn't equate to harming straight marriage, and you have yet to provide even a single shred of evidence to support your claims. You say it does, but you cannot seem to say exactly how or why. It's nebulous perceived threat that you can't seem to define.

Gay marriage no more damages the country, or marriage than interracial marriage. Like people can't choose what race they were born, gay people cannot help what sex they were born.

Yes, anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe is a "barbarian." You're moral superiority is amazing.


Posted by Rob in Baltimore]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:01:34 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> Posted by very bad homo]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:42:37 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> @72

No attraction to other men, but I do have a genetic tendency to heart disease. Should I eat badly and never exercise since I was 'born that way'?

@73
If you'd read the excellent summation given by Archbishop Sartain you'd see the real threat is to the generational destruction of marriage. It's what happened with relative morality and high divorce rates following a general trend to the left in the 40's through the late 70's. It wasn't the generation that adopted the change but the one that followed that suffered.

@74
I'll refer you to 70. It's up to those who want the change to demonstrate things, not those defending the status quo. You want to destroy this country, show the rest of us how that destruction is beneficial, convince enough to adopt your view, and you might just accomplish your goals. But expect a fight, and don't expect me to defend what needs no defense.

Now I'm going outside before I run out of time.
Posted by Seattleblues]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:34:38 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]>
Not being Catholic, I don't know their position on seafood etc. My protestant congregation goes by Romans 14 on this issue, as well as by several statements of Paul regarding clean/unclean meats.

No such statement retracts the Old Testament categorization of homosexual behavior as an abomination. Paul deals with sexual sin both heterosexual and homosexual, but far more with heterosexual. Which makes sense. My 3rd grade Sunday school teacher never did talk to us about sexual sin. I'd guess he felt it wasn't a major activity among his elementary school age students. Paul and the disciples wouldn't have spent much time on what they would have regarded as both settled and not part of what their audiences needed by way of pastoral guidance.

After all, in those times the vast majority would have seen homosexual behavior for what it is and was, a rebellion against the biological reality of how the human body works sexually, a violation of the natural order of things.

As for dispensing sexual advice, I have contempt for that whole field of endeavor. If sex is the physical expression of the emotional intimacy, trust and love you share with your spouse you don't need the Kama Sutra or an aging pervert for pointers. If it isn't, all the tricks and visits to adult bookstores and so on in the world won't fill that void.

Now, I have house trim to paint while the weather is cooperating. Have a pleasant day.
Posted by Seattleblues]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:24:06 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> -how exactly homosexuality is inherently detrimental
-how exactly gay people getting gay married will affect your marriage
Posted by venomlash]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:13:49 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]>
Or, do you think that you're just morally superior to others, and while your family is safe from the pink menace, other straight people, who are less righteous than you, will fall when they see two gay men living their lives together as a married couple?

Luckily, you being a low level worker, have no real pull in such business matters.

Posted by Rob in Baltimore]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:10:08 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> "Even granting (and I absolutely do NOT) that we are the helpless volitionless victims of genetic inclination to heterosexual or homosexual inclination, that inclination in no way justifies the behavior simply by existing."

Really?
So you are sexually attracted to both men and women?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:09:48 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]>
I have consistently said that what depravities you engage in privately are your business. I've written in this thread that I don't wish to criminalize homosexual behavior among consenting adults. When you're willing to be grown ups and accept the consequences of your choices I'm even okay with protecting gays from discrimination- in respect to your right to make choices I would not.

At present however, I won't personally do business with, rent a home to, or in any way express financial or social approval of the homosexual lifestyle. But that's only since you folks declared war on marriage and family in my state. Take the army from the gates of civilization and accept the consequences of your behavioral choices, and we're right back to 'none of my business.'


Posted by Seattleblues]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:51:46 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]>
I mention pedophilia, sadism, homosexuality- and heterosexuality. Even granting (and I absolutely do NOT) that we are the helpless volitionless victims of genetic inclination to heterosexual or homosexual inclination, that inclination in no way justifies the behavior simply by existing.

For that justification you have to look at how the behavior affects the person engaging it and those around him or her. Born that way just doesn't do anything but beg the question. And since you want to alter moral and social codes and constructs for your convenience, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that homosexuality or gay marriage is at worst neutral or at best desirable. It is NOT, NOT, NOT on me or others defending the status quo to create your case for you.

Further, the burden of proof is on your side to show what harms are being done and why anyone else should alter their views to suit your choices. It's on you to show why the known harm of destroying marriage and morality and family for 97% of citizens who aren't gay is justified to fix the self caused problems of the self selecting 3% who are. Assuming you can get past those first two, you must then show how the social changes you propose fix the problems you assume to exist.

And you can't. On any of the above, you just can't.

So you try to criminalize perceptions of homosexuality you personally find distasteful. You try to force others through legislative fiat to celebrate relationships you haven't even demonstrated to be desirable in the first instance. Incapable of morality or healthy sexual expression, you try to destroy morality and make unhealthy promiscuity and depravity the rule among everyone else.

It is a culture war, with the Judeo Christian notions of right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral under attack by the barbarians. Can you wonder when that act of war is treated as such with the social consequences any rational person would expect? Can you wonder, when you try to force approval of your abberant lifestlyes, that the Christian church and other forces for good fight back?
Posted by Seattleblues]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:43:20 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> Dominic,
From a Q&A doc to the pastors. Question #4:
Q. Can signatures for a ballot measure be collected at church?
A. Yes, with the permission of the pastor.
Posted by BelieveInNuances]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:42:36 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> ha-satan just plays devil's advocate?
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:15:46 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally]]> In Canada and other countries, right now, same sex couples do, in fact get married. Whether you like it or not, we are really married, legally and in the eyes of our churches. And more and more countries, including the U.S., will make that legal and true.
And there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
You are a dinosaur, and your kind is heading for extinction.
And the more you rant, the more I smile and smile. Your blood pressure is going up and mine is just fine.
Thanks for keeping me amused!
Posted by shambhaladawa]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:03:31 -0700 The Stranger