Slog
News & ArtsMonday, April 9, 2012
Gay Marriage Archbishop Turns Every Seattle Mass Into an Anti-Gay Political Rally
Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, who oversees Washington State's Catholic hierarchy and nearly 250 churches, has angered local Catholics by ordering a petition drive in all parishes to repeal the state's gay marriage law. In a letter to parishioners, Sartain explains he has "approved the gathering of signatures in our parishes over the next few months" and given priests "information regarding the signature drive" that begins today.
"Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered," says Sartain, adding, "All Christians are called to chastity, and sexual intercourse is so intimate and significant that it is intended only for a man and woman in marriage."
Although Sartain was welcomed to the city two years ago as a tolerant listener, his latest decree helps redefine that reputation by turning parishes into venues for right-wing organizing. The announcement also brings the Seattle Archdiocese—long considered a font of progressive thinking and social conscience—into cozy relations with the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a virulently anti-gay national group trying to repeal marriage equality in Washington State. The campaign to put Referendum 74 on the November ballot is officially run by Preserve Marriage Washington. However, Sartain borrows repeatedly NOM's leading talking point, complaining that lawmakers have "redefined marriage."
Even in liberal Seattle, dissent from pastors appears unlikely.
"If priests spoke out, I think they would be silenced. They would lose their pulpits. That's a safe bet," says Barbara Guzzo, a Catholic who attends St. Mary's in the Central District. Along with an organizing committee, Guzzo has formed Catholics for Marriage Equality in Washington specifically to resist Sartain's campaign.
Sartain's letter, accompanied by an exhaustive four-page FAQ, tries to deflect criticisms about the church's politics of discrimination. "That is not the case," Sartain asserts. "Treating different things differently is not discrimination." Sartain claims that unlike gay marriage, heterosexual marriage is inherently linked to procreation, and that children have recently become the "unintended victims of family disintegration." While simultaneously defending single parenthood, he warns of "alternative families that deprive a child of a father or a mother (such as arrangements headed by two men or two women)." As such, the church's beliefs must be codified in state law.
"We disagree with positions that bishops are taking," Guzzo says. "Jesus was all about inclusively and love. The stand our bishop is taking is the opposite."
Guzzo continues, "The church has a right to set the rules for marriage that it wants in the church, but, likewise, the legislature has a right to grant equality to all committed couples living in our state."
Sartain's office is closed today and his spokesman has not replied to request for comment.
Update on 4/11: St. James Cathedral reverend Michael Ryan has announced that he won't allow the petitions in his parish, saying circulating them would be "hurtful and seriously divisive." He adds that other priests can also refuse.
1
At the invitation of a friend, had considered attending Easter Vigil mass (it would've been the first time at mass since the Nazi pope was elected (yes, I know the Hitler's Youth thing is an unfair accusation, and honestly, I've SO MANY issues with Ratzinger that that doesn't even register. But it's satisfying to type Nazi Pope sometimes). Now I'm doubly-glad that I wasn't able to make the mass. Sheesh!
And yeah, it's too bad that the priests who disagree aren't really allowed to speak out.
And yeah, it's too bad that the priests who disagree aren't really allowed to speak out.
4
Dear Catholics:
It has come to my attention that you are, on a regular basis, being Catholic. That is a total dick move. Please knock it off.
-me
It has come to my attention that you are, on a regular basis, being Catholic. That is a total dick move. Please knock it off.
-me
5
Just disgusting - but kudos to Barbara Guzzo. She and Paul Purcell have done great, great things to build affordable housing all around the state. Rock on!
7
Archbishop Sa_ta_n is so typical of the closeted, homophobic 'leaders' of the Catholic Criminal Empire. Regaled in their finest dresses & party hats, these bozos issue strange & hateful proclamations at the behest of the biggest queen of all, Pope Rat. They try to divert attention from the child abuse scandal by using the old Nazi trick of shooting one of their own to prove they're not one of them ...you're fooling no one, archbishop!
What's amazing is that anyone could be dumb enough to continue to fund these weirdos.
What's amazing is that anyone could be dumb enough to continue to fund these weirdos.
8
I hope church membership declines steeply from this. There are no words strong enough for this bullshit.
9
"... children have recently become the 'unintended victims of family disintegration.'"
I don't hate teh gheys but won't somebody please THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?
"Treating different things differently is not discrimination."
A woman can perform oral sex on a guy - that's okay.
A guy can perform oral sex on a woman - that's okay.
A guy can perform oral sex on a guy - no! That's bad! Icky!
Okay, I'm not seeing the "different" there.
A bit more explicit? NSFW.
Women sucking cock - Yay! That's wholesome
Guys sucking cock - Evil! Satan! Unholy!
I don't hate teh gheys but won't somebody please THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?
"Treating different things differently is not discrimination."
A woman can perform oral sex on a guy - that's okay.
A guy can perform oral sex on a woman - that's okay.
A guy can perform oral sex on a guy - no! That's bad! Icky!
Okay, I'm not seeing the "different" there.
A bit more explicit? NSFW.
Women sucking cock - Yay! That's wholesome
Guys sucking cock - Evil! Satan! Unholy!
11
@fairly.unbalanced #9 - Actually, the Catholic Church is quite clear: ANY sex act that does not have a high probability of procreation is morally reprehensible. This includes sex while using contraception, sex while using condoms, oral sex, anal sex, frottage and masturbation, just to list the most common "sins."
12
Can't we remove their state and federal tax exemptions (e.g. Giveaways)?
@10 for the Call Em Like You See Em win.
@10 for the Call Em Like You See Em win.
13
Everyone should read the "Q & A" link. It is awesome! But not in a good way.
"Q. What harm is there to married men and women if the definition of marriage is changed to allow two men or two women to marry?
A. There is no direct harm to existing marriages if the state redefines marriage, but it will change the way marriage is perceived in society and taught in schools. The status of marriage will be diminished because it will be discriminatory to suggest that it is the foundation of the family. Children will be taught that marriage between a man and a woman is just one relationship among many, and the resulting change in attitudes will affect decisions they make with respect to relationships and the raising of children."
Awesome.
"The status of marriage will be diminished because it will be discriminatory to suggest that it is the foundation of the family."
So two guys getting married cannot be allowed because then they'd be a "family" and they're NOT a family. They're NOT NOT NOT!
And that will confuse the children (PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN) and those poor, confused children will think that other relationships are possible. Like living together without being married. Or living together without being married after daddy and mommy divorced and mommy is living with step-daddy and his kids. Which those poor children have not been exposed to yet.
"Q. What harm is there to married men and women if the definition of marriage is changed to allow two men or two women to marry?
A. There is no direct harm to existing marriages if the state redefines marriage, but it will change the way marriage is perceived in society and taught in schools. The status of marriage will be diminished because it will be discriminatory to suggest that it is the foundation of the family. Children will be taught that marriage between a man and a woman is just one relationship among many, and the resulting change in attitudes will affect decisions they make with respect to relationships and the raising of children."
Awesome.
"The status of marriage will be diminished because it will be discriminatory to suggest that it is the foundation of the family."
So two guys getting married cannot be allowed because then they'd be a "family" and they're NOT a family. They're NOT NOT NOT!
And that will confuse the children (PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN) and those poor, confused children will think that other relationships are possible. Like living together without being married. Or living together without being married after daddy and mommy divorced and mommy is living with step-daddy and his kids. Which those poor children have not been exposed to yet.
14
The Catholic Church is intrinsically disordered, and Archbishop Sartain is NOT WELCOME IN OUR CITY. People need to start cutting these people off. Don't let priests into your shops or restaurants or places of business. Refuse to make their business cards or print their prayer cards.
16
Fnarf @14 I don't consider Mars Hill Redneck Church welcome in our city, either, but MFers are still spreading like a cancer. I'd like a list of businesses owned by their attendees.
17
Catholics need to stop apologizing for their medieval church and start leaving. And for everyone else, "Oh, I don't actually adhere to Official Church Doctrine, I just fund it with my donations" needs to stop being a socially acceptable evasion.
If you voluntarily give money to an organization, you are endorsing its actions in the world, and other people are right to hold you accountable for those actions.
If you voluntarily give money to an organization, you are endorsing its actions in the world, and other people are right to hold you accountable for those actions.
19
"All Christians are called to chastity...."In that case, I'd like the Catholic ([sic], not Christian) hierarchy to spend a portion of its energies on combatting this moral problem. Like how about installing a lie detector machine in the confessional booth (just to catch those people who forget to mention that particular transgression. [Yes, I realize that this kind of a polygraph doesn't exist.]
It's no wonder that these people are pushing hard, as they're seeing their last target for condemnation slipping away from them. After all, it'll be really hard to malign the LGBT community after it's attained more human rights.
20
With the rich tradition of intellectual rigor and groundbreaking work in everything from the sciences to the humanities in the Catholic Church, it's unsurprising to see the issue so well stated by the Archbishop.
It's well past time that we on the side of decency and marriage and morality put the onus on the perverts and deviants to justify their attempts to destroy marriage. It's past time we stop trying to reason with the far left perverts that make up the Homosexual Special Rights lobby. You can't reason with these mentally ill types. You can only pity them and ignore their lunacies.
You can't compromise with evil. Heterosexual marriage is a keystone institution in our society, and the attempts to destroy it on the part of some perverts needs to be met with firm refusal and clear denunciation. Morality, sexual or otherwise, is what keeps us viable as a culture and the attempts of you folks to destroy it soley to salve your consciences should be treated as the act of social war that it is.
For the perverts and those suffering from the spiritual and mental illness of homosexuality, you have a choice if you dislike Catholicism. Don't go to a Catholic church. Otherwise like you, they have a right to advocacy for what they consider the best interests of their fellow citizens.
Well done, Archbishop Sartain. Keep up the good work.
It's well past time that we on the side of decency and marriage and morality put the onus on the perverts and deviants to justify their attempts to destroy marriage. It's past time we stop trying to reason with the far left perverts that make up the Homosexual Special Rights lobby. You can't reason with these mentally ill types. You can only pity them and ignore their lunacies.
You can't compromise with evil. Heterosexual marriage is a keystone institution in our society, and the attempts to destroy it on the part of some perverts needs to be met with firm refusal and clear denunciation. Morality, sexual or otherwise, is what keeps us viable as a culture and the attempts of you folks to destroy it soley to salve your consciences should be treated as the act of social war that it is.
For the perverts and those suffering from the spiritual and mental illness of homosexuality, you have a choice if you dislike Catholicism. Don't go to a Catholic church. Otherwise like you, they have a right to advocacy for what they consider the best interests of their fellow citizens.
Well done, Archbishop Sartain. Keep up the good work.
22
"...sexual intercourse is so intimate and significant that it is intended only for a man and woman in marriage." How would this guy know (obvious zingers aside)?
23
Exhibit A for what happens world-wide when celibate monastic clergy dictate rules for the sex lives of lay people; it cuts across pretty much all religions.
24
@16
Yeah....
The majority of folks who identify as Christian in this country are shaking in their boots! I mean, without the minimum wage earning welfare rat who never leaves Cap Hill (aka- the worlds largest free range petting zoo) demographic, their businesses would just collapse!
Yeah....
The majority of folks who identify as Christian in this country are shaking in their boots! I mean, without the minimum wage earning welfare rat who never leaves Cap Hill (aka- the worlds largest free range petting zoo) demographic, their businesses would just collapse!
26
I wonder if Catholic Washington State Senator Ed Murray will continue to attend Mass. I have read that signature numbers are lagging, and that when the archdiocese in Maine tried a petition drive, it backfired and led more Catholics to vote against the repeal of the marriage equality law.
27
@19, all Christians are called to give up all of their wealth as well. Jesus himself could not have been clearer on that point: you're called to give everything you own to the poor and travel about as a homeless person.
Mark 10:21: "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Luke 14:33 — "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.”
If you're not doing this you get to say exactly NOTHING about any supposed sexual immorality. Cars, houses, computers? Forget it, you're a slave to Satan.
Mark 10:21: "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Luke 14:33 — "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.”
If you're not doing this you get to say exactly NOTHING about any supposed sexual immorality. Cars, houses, computers? Forget it, you're a slave to Satan.
28
Taking child rearing advice - oooops, I made a pun- from a priest---HAHAHAHA!!!!! Let's get investment advice from Madoff next. Or marriage advice from Gingrich. How stupid are people???
31
@29 none the law hasn't gone into affect (effect? I always screw those up) WA state has a 90 day waiting period for all but the most urgent legislation.
If AB Sartain, NOM and there ilk gather enough signatures to qualify Ref 74 for the ballot gay couples will be denied marriage until after the election. Assuming of course the majority votes to APPROVE Ref. 74 and affirm the work the legislature already did.
Of course the reality here in Washington state is that many same sex couples are already married. My husband and I were married almost 4 years ago in Ca. Our marriages are simply not recognized.
If AB Sartain, NOM and there ilk gather enough signatures to qualify Ref 74 for the ballot gay couples will be denied marriage until after the election. Assuming of course the majority votes to APPROVE Ref. 74 and affirm the work the legislature already did.
Of course the reality here in Washington state is that many same sex couples are already married. My husband and I were married almost 4 years ago in Ca. Our marriages are simply not recognized.
32
@27
Shhh. Not so loud. Otherwise @20 would have to stop taking ALL those vacations overseas and help the poor instead. The mind boggles!
Shhh. Not so loud. Otherwise @20 would have to stop taking ALL those vacations overseas and help the poor instead. The mind boggles!
33
@31
Married?
No. You're not. And, no matter what happens in Washington or New York or anywhere else, you never will be.
Marriage is the union of a man and woman. It is not and never will be anything else. It never has been. Whether as political or property decisions, as romantic liassons, as convenience or whatever else, marriage has always and will always be intrinsically heterosexual in nature.
You may deeply love your boyfriend and find great emotional fulfillment in your relationship. Congratulations. I'd never presume to tell you with whom you should seek such a relationship. I'd never say that you and your boyfriend should be denied a home or job or seating in a restaurant based on your chosen homosexuality. I would never disrespect you so much as to tell you what or how to think about your relationship.
Now, if only you and others like you who chose the vice of homosexuality would only extend the same courtesy to the vast majority of us who aren't subject to that vice, I'd be so grateful. If only you'd accept the consequences of your choices like adults rather than asking that others celebrate your self destructive choices, I wouldn't have a blind thing to say about gays and their poor choices.
But you don't. And you won't. Until and unless everyone is forced by law to stand up and give 3 rousing cheers every time a gay couple walks by, to never under any circumstances voice deeply held beliefs that your choice is self destructive, to use the law to force your tiny minority of opinion on each and every other citizen, you won't be happy.
You even grossly insult those who didn't choose their minority status with real civil rights issues to deal with by equating your false issues with theirs. You are the equivalent of a man with sound legs insisting on wheelchair ramps because you choose to use a wheelchair since walking is so HARD. It's not only ludicrous, it insults those who actually rely on wheelchairs for their very mobility.
And that's what bugs me, not your erroneous use of family or marriage to describe your relationship or your poor personal choices.
More...
Married?
No. You're not. And, no matter what happens in Washington or New York or anywhere else, you never will be.
Marriage is the union of a man and woman. It is not and never will be anything else. It never has been. Whether as political or property decisions, as romantic liassons, as convenience or whatever else, marriage has always and will always be intrinsically heterosexual in nature.
You may deeply love your boyfriend and find great emotional fulfillment in your relationship. Congratulations. I'd never presume to tell you with whom you should seek such a relationship. I'd never say that you and your boyfriend should be denied a home or job or seating in a restaurant based on your chosen homosexuality. I would never disrespect you so much as to tell you what or how to think about your relationship.
Now, if only you and others like you who chose the vice of homosexuality would only extend the same courtesy to the vast majority of us who aren't subject to that vice, I'd be so grateful. If only you'd accept the consequences of your choices like adults rather than asking that others celebrate your self destructive choices, I wouldn't have a blind thing to say about gays and their poor choices.
But you don't. And you won't. Until and unless everyone is forced by law to stand up and give 3 rousing cheers every time a gay couple walks by, to never under any circumstances voice deeply held beliefs that your choice is self destructive, to use the law to force your tiny minority of opinion on each and every other citizen, you won't be happy.
You even grossly insult those who didn't choose their minority status with real civil rights issues to deal with by equating your false issues with theirs. You are the equivalent of a man with sound legs insisting on wheelchair ramps because you choose to use a wheelchair since walking is so HARD. It's not only ludicrous, it insults those who actually rely on wheelchairs for their very mobility.
And that's what bugs me, not your erroneous use of family or marriage to describe your relationship or your poor personal choices.
34
@27
Nice convenient out of context use of those verses.
10 out of 10 for advocacy of an opinion you don't hold to make the deviant perversion of your pals seem better by comparison. 0 out of 10 for theological understanding of those verses or what they mean in context.
But your point is taken, and I humbly accept it. What Christ did say that applies more readily and more universally is "those who are without sin, cast the first stone."
Oh? What's that you say? That wasn't in the Huff Po daily talking points for how to display hatred of Christianity? Sorry, I didn't get the memo.
Nice convenient out of context use of those verses.
10 out of 10 for advocacy of an opinion you don't hold to make the deviant perversion of your pals seem better by comparison. 0 out of 10 for theological understanding of those verses or what they mean in context.
But your point is taken, and I humbly accept it. What Christ did say that applies more readily and more universally is "those who are without sin, cast the first stone."
Oh? What's that you say? That wasn't in the Huff Po daily talking points for how to display hatred of Christianity? Sorry, I didn't get the memo.
36
Pro-Marriage Equality Catholic representing!
I believe the Church oversteps here. We've got more internal issues to solve than keeping two consenting adults from marrying. I find it uncomfortable picking up the mantle of "Common Good" when our organization has done so much damage. I believe we should be educating ourselves and getting to know the needs of our LGBTQ constituents without fanning the flames of intolerance. Let us go quietly about the work healing ourselves and our communities.
I believe the Church oversteps here. We've got more internal issues to solve than keeping two consenting adults from marrying. I find it uncomfortable picking up the mantle of "Common Good" when our organization has done so much damage. I believe we should be educating ourselves and getting to know the needs of our LGBTQ constituents without fanning the flames of intolerance. Let us go quietly about the work healing ourselves and our communities.
37
Pro-Marriage Equality Catholic representing!
I believe the Church oversteps here. We've got more internal issues to solve than keeping two consenting adults from marrying. I find it uncomfortable picking up the mantle of "Common Good" when our organization has done so much damage. I believe we should be educating ourselves and getting to know the needs of our LGBTQ constituents without fanning the flames of intolerance. Let us go quietly about the work healing ourselves and our communities.
I believe the Church oversteps here. We've got more internal issues to solve than keeping two consenting adults from marrying. I find it uncomfortable picking up the mantle of "Common Good" when our organization has done so much damage. I believe we should be educating ourselves and getting to know the needs of our LGBTQ constituents without fanning the flames of intolerance. Let us go quietly about the work healing ourselves and our communities.
38
@35
Well, 'Not' is accurate in your little note anyway.
I'm not bigoted nor homophobic. Keep your private affairs private, and I could care less with whom you sleep, gay or straight, singly or in indiscriminate groups Just isn't my business. Gays don't frighten me, though the trend liberals advocate toward immorality and social decay and hatred of this great country, including homosexuality being celebrated, does a bit. And while I don't refer to the physical intimacy in my marriage as fucking- anymore than I'd call my wife a slut or a whore- we are physically intimate. That what you meant by "fucking?"
But unfortunately I can on occasion be a prick.
Hey, Rujax, 1 out of 4 is pretty good batting for you! Congrats. Hope you had a good Easter old buddy.
Well, 'Not' is accurate in your little note anyway.
I'm not bigoted nor homophobic. Keep your private affairs private, and I could care less with whom you sleep, gay or straight, singly or in indiscriminate groups Just isn't my business. Gays don't frighten me, though the trend liberals advocate toward immorality and social decay and hatred of this great country, including homosexuality being celebrated, does a bit. And while I don't refer to the physical intimacy in my marriage as fucking- anymore than I'd call my wife a slut or a whore- we are physically intimate. That what you meant by "fucking?"
But unfortunately I can on occasion be a prick.
Hey, Rujax, 1 out of 4 is pretty good batting for you! Congrats. Hope you had a good Easter old buddy.
39
@37
I'm not Catholic, but getting to know the needs of those who choose open sin is easy from the perspective of Christianity. Whether the sin is pride or homosexuality or promiscuity or embezzling company funds or just being mean, repentance and working to remove the sin from your life is the need.
There is no Christian position which supports unrepentant sin. Just as there are no ethical doctors who prescribe hemlock for a headache.
See how easy that is.
Your church heirarchy is doing their job. They are mobilizing to defeat a social evil that threatens marriage for your children and for mine. While I'm not Catholic, I can and do heartily congratulate you on the theological soundness of your church leadership.
No, they haven't been perfect. The covering up of pedophile priests was an egregious error, for which your church has paid and is paying. Keeping the pressure on not to repeat the error is one thing. Wallowing in past mistakes that have been rectified as much as humanly and legally possible is quite another.
I'm not Catholic, but getting to know the needs of those who choose open sin is easy from the perspective of Christianity. Whether the sin is pride or homosexuality or promiscuity or embezzling company funds or just being mean, repentance and working to remove the sin from your life is the need.
There is no Christian position which supports unrepentant sin. Just as there are no ethical doctors who prescribe hemlock for a headache.
See how easy that is.
Your church heirarchy is doing their job. They are mobilizing to defeat a social evil that threatens marriage for your children and for mine. While I'm not Catholic, I can and do heartily congratulate you on the theological soundness of your church leadership.
No, they haven't been perfect. The covering up of pedophile priests was an egregious error, for which your church has paid and is paying. Keeping the pressure on not to repeat the error is one thing. Wallowing in past mistakes that have been rectified as much as humanly and legally possible is quite another.
40
Trust me, asshole...we're NOT pals.
There is no sin in sex...homosexual or otherwise.
There is sin in the ways human beings fail...lying, hatred, bigotry.
Your place on hell is reserved right next to the good Archbishop.
There is no sin in sex...homosexual or otherwise.
There is sin in the ways human beings fail...lying, hatred, bigotry.
Your place on hell is reserved right next to the good Archbishop.
41
@39 - "They are mobilizing to defeat a social evil that threatens marriage for your children and for mine."
Wait - I thought your kid was straight. Oh - NOW I see what's going on here.
Wait - I thought your kid was straight. Oh - NOW I see what's going on here.
42
Sorry Dominic, you're wrong again.
He is not ordering it. Read the letter he sent to the priests carefully. He said signatures can be gathered with the pastor's permission.
Mark my words, all over Seattle, pastors are NOT giving their permission.
You can stalk St. James Cathedral (as you like to) and you can stalk other Seattle-area parishes and you won't find any R-74 sheets.
Rural parishes? Yes. Different parishioners, different pastors.
I'm curious about the suburban parishes. It will speak volumes about how the marriage vote will go.
What's different this time between this and the bulletin insert from a few months ago? The last time it was an insert that never mentioned same-sex marriage, but just praised "traditional marriage." This is quite the act of hate in churches that pastors won't put up with.
(Which is why I think Sartain is giving permission to pastors a built-in "out."
He is not ordering it. Read the letter he sent to the priests carefully. He said signatures can be gathered with the pastor's permission.
Mark my words, all over Seattle, pastors are NOT giving their permission.
You can stalk St. James Cathedral (as you like to) and you can stalk other Seattle-area parishes and you won't find any R-74 sheets.
Rural parishes? Yes. Different parishioners, different pastors.
I'm curious about the suburban parishes. It will speak volumes about how the marriage vote will go.
What's different this time between this and the bulletin insert from a few months ago? The last time it was an insert that never mentioned same-sex marriage, but just praised "traditional marriage." This is quite the act of hate in churches that pastors won't put up with.
(Which is why I think Sartain is giving permission to pastors a built-in "out."
43
The short answer is that God loves everyone just as He created them and He wants everyone to enjoy a full life of happiness and fulfilling our innate desires. All opinions to the contrary are the work of Satan.
44
@43
No. That kind of sophistry is the work of Satan.
Cancer is innate. We still operate on it, provide chemotherapy, try to heal the patient of this thing that left unchecked will destroy him or her.
Homosexual desire may be innate (or not, since there is zero scientific evidence of a 'gay gene'.) So may pedophilia, or sadism or just normal heterosexuality. That doesn't make it constructive, never mind a thing that will make a person happy or fulfilled. It doesn't make it bad either, per se, but the tired 'born that way' argument proves nothing about how desirable the behavior is on its' face.
Heterosexual marriage and family have millenia of history and evidence of how they help the husband or wife lead a happy and fulfilled life. Homosexuality has not. Burden of proof is on you folks, I'm afraid.
No. That kind of sophistry is the work of Satan.
Cancer is innate. We still operate on it, provide chemotherapy, try to heal the patient of this thing that left unchecked will destroy him or her.
Homosexual desire may be innate (or not, since there is zero scientific evidence of a 'gay gene'.) So may pedophilia, or sadism or just normal heterosexuality. That doesn't make it constructive, never mind a thing that will make a person happy or fulfilled. It doesn't make it bad either, per se, but the tired 'born that way' argument proves nothing about how desirable the behavior is on its' face.
Heterosexual marriage and family have millenia of history and evidence of how they help the husband or wife lead a happy and fulfilled life. Homosexuality has not. Burden of proof is on you folks, I'm afraid.
46
@44
"Heterosexual marriage and family have millenia of history and evidence of how they help the husband or wife lead a happy and fulfilled life."
The divorce rate and Dan's "monogamous" series contradict your claim.
"Heterosexual marriage and family have millenia of history and evidence of how they help the husband or wife lead a happy and fulfilled life."
The divorce rate and Dan's "monogamous" series contradict your claim.
47
@Seattleblues #44 - You do know, of course, that polygamy is far more common in human history than monogamy, right? And that "Biblical marriage" was all about one man, several wives and as many concubines as he could afford, right? And than many cultures have accepted homosexuality and same-sex marriages, right? That your narrow-minded, provincial opinions are nothing more than narrow-minded, provincial opinions, right?
48
@46
Yes. Because a few perverts writing the Slog equivalent of Penthouse letters to an aging deviant pervert freak who can't even understand sex enough to know that it's properly conducted between OPPOSITE genders trumps billions of happy marriages. Okay, if you say so.
For my money Dan Savage is a disgusting freak who isn't happy ruining his own life but must preach his depravity to kids on college campuses. He must destroy as much as he can reach as an expression of his own soul deep evil. At least a murderer takes only a life. A thing of evil like Savage tempts people to sacrifice their own souls, and is culpable for this in the end. God sees good in this thing called Dan Savage. Which is good, since I can't imagine where that good might lurk beneath the filth and depravity that make up his public personna.
And liberals telling people that marriage is meaningless for 45 years now, teaching kids that promiscuity and depravity are the paths to happiness rather than self destruction, do result in a higher divorce rate. Another causalty of the culture wars solidly laid to liberals.
This doesn't even get into the culture of entitlement, the bone laziness and lack of initiative, the diminishing work ethic that liberal social policies create. It's just the social destruction you folks cause.
Yep. Libs have a lot to answer for in the deterioration of this great nation.
Yes. Because a few perverts writing the Slog equivalent of Penthouse letters to an aging deviant pervert freak who can't even understand sex enough to know that it's properly conducted between OPPOSITE genders trumps billions of happy marriages. Okay, if you say so.
For my money Dan Savage is a disgusting freak who isn't happy ruining his own life but must preach his depravity to kids on college campuses. He must destroy as much as he can reach as an expression of his own soul deep evil. At least a murderer takes only a life. A thing of evil like Savage tempts people to sacrifice their own souls, and is culpable for this in the end. God sees good in this thing called Dan Savage. Which is good, since I can't imagine where that good might lurk beneath the filth and depravity that make up his public personna.
And liberals telling people that marriage is meaningless for 45 years now, teaching kids that promiscuity and depravity are the paths to happiness rather than self destruction, do result in a higher divorce rate. Another causalty of the culture wars solidly laid to liberals.
This doesn't even get into the culture of entitlement, the bone laziness and lack of initiative, the diminishing work ethic that liberal social policies create. It's just the social destruction you folks cause.
Yep. Libs have a lot to answer for in the deterioration of this great nation.
49
@47
Oh, yes. Please cite the many many instances of homosexual marriage practiced historically in one remote tribe in the hinterlands of some jungle or desert 400 years ago, or in some exception granted legal status 2 or 3 times in all of European history.
Historical revisionism won't help you here, try though you might. Marriage is, marriage always has been, marriage always will be heterosexual in nature.
Speaking of provincialism, how do you rate destroying marriage for 98% of the population for the sole benefit of the remaining 2%? Sounds pretty damn provincial to me anyway.
Oh, yes. Please cite the many many instances of homosexual marriage practiced historically in one remote tribe in the hinterlands of some jungle or desert 400 years ago, or in some exception granted legal status 2 or 3 times in all of European history.
Historical revisionism won't help you here, try though you might. Marriage is, marriage always has been, marriage always will be heterosexual in nature.
Speaking of provincialism, how do you rate destroying marriage for 98% of the population for the sole benefit of the remaining 2%? Sounds pretty damn provincial to me anyway.
50
@48
"And liberals telling people that marriage is meaningless for 45 years now, teaching kids that promiscuity and depravity are the paths to happiness rather than self destruction, do result in a higher divorce rate."
So people get married and experience (in your words) "a happy and fulfilled life" and then decide to throw that away and get divorced.
I can see the "promiscuity and depravity" maybe leading to fewer marriages. But once they do marry and get with the "happy and fulfilled life" I'm not seeing how the Liberals are convincing them to get divorced and give up that "happy and fulfilled life".
How would that conversation go?
"Honey, you know that my life with you has been happy and fulfilled but I want a divorce. I guess happiness isn't what I was looking for in a marriage. And I cannot take this constant feeling of fulfillment that I find with you for one more moment. Let us split the wedding gifts and file for divorce in the morning."
"And liberals telling people that marriage is meaningless for 45 years now, teaching kids that promiscuity and depravity are the paths to happiness rather than self destruction, do result in a higher divorce rate."
So people get married and experience (in your words) "a happy and fulfilled life" and then decide to throw that away and get divorced.
I can see the "promiscuity and depravity" maybe leading to fewer marriages. But once they do marry and get with the "happy and fulfilled life" I'm not seeing how the Liberals are convincing them to get divorced and give up that "happy and fulfilled life".
How would that conversation go?
"Honey, you know that my life with you has been happy and fulfilled but I want a divorce. I guess happiness isn't what I was looking for in a marriage. And I cannot take this constant feeling of fulfillment that I find with you for one more moment. Let us split the wedding gifts and file for divorce in the morning."
51
Do not feed trolls... Do not feed troooooooooo.... This is my life I'm talking about.....
@31 Not married? Says who.... Marriage is a civil institution regulated by the state. Our friends and family came together and celebrated, I have a document signed and sealed by the State of California that affirms my marriage. My husband and have been together for 15 years, through thick and thin, death of our grandparents, bat mitzvahs and family drama, if that's not marriage what is.
@31 Not married? Says who.... Marriage is a civil institution regulated by the state. Our friends and family came together and celebrated, I have a document signed and sealed by the State of California that affirms my marriage. My husband and have been together for 15 years, through thick and thin, death of our grandparents, bat mitzvahs and family drama, if that's not marriage what is.
52
@44 Cancer is NOT inate. Usually, it is one cell mutating in such a way that it becomes a rogue (essentially foreign) cell; with what has now become a different genome (thus, a different species). Or, it is caused by a virus (also not innate). And yes, we operate to remove it because it can harm the body.
Cancer, is not, however, a human being. So why bring cancer to a discussion of homosexuality? Why mention pedophilia? Or sadism?
Yes, I read what you said. I'm not making the connection you're implying, because the gay people I know are simply just different in their sexual orientation. They are pretty universally good people (and I'm a good judge of what my grandmother used to call "character").
And, yes, there is ample evidence for both a genetic influence in sexual orientation, and influence from hormones in utero (data which has been presented to you many times before). We have not forgotten the conversations we have had with you here, just because you were gone for a little while.
Cancer, is not, however, a human being. So why bring cancer to a discussion of homosexuality? Why mention pedophilia? Or sadism?
Yes, I read what you said. I'm not making the connection you're implying, because the gay people I know are simply just different in their sexual orientation. They are pretty universally good people (and I'm a good judge of what my grandmother used to call "character").
And, yes, there is ample evidence for both a genetic influence in sexual orientation, and influence from hormones in utero (data which has been presented to you many times before). We have not forgotten the conversations we have had with you here, just because you were gone for a little while.
53
Oh, SeattleBlues. This noise again?
You've yet to demonstrate how marriage equality harms any marriage in particular or society in general. The state has to demonstrate a rational basis for denying a right.
Churches can refuse to marry same-sex couples, just as they can refuse to marry interracial couples, interfaith couples, or whatever.
You've yet to demonstrate how marriage equality harms any marriage in particular or society in general. The state has to demonstrate a rational basis for denying a right.
Churches can refuse to marry same-sex couples, just as they can refuse to marry interracial couples, interfaith couples, or whatever.
54
Not really surprising, the church is fully politicized. the last funeral I went to the priest went on a five minute jag on abortion.
55
Unrepentant abusive trolling. Sigh. Leopards don't change their spots as the saying goes. Vile people say vile abusive things and take pleasure in it. Drugs? Alcohol? Mental illness? Difficult childhood? Abusive and controlling? Or all? Such ugliness. What a pity.
Oh well, hearts and opinions we all get them. Besides who actually cares what anonymous Internet commenter thinks or in this case vomits all over the thread?
Oh well, hearts and opinions we all get them. Besides who actually cares what anonymous Internet commenter thinks or in this case vomits all over the thread?
57
@33: Luckily, whether or not someone is married has nothing to do with what you say on the matter. If the state says they're married, they're married. Sorry brah. Too bad, so sad, worst day you evah had.
@39: The issue at hand is that your idea of what is sin is pretty much irrelevant. As is your idea of what society is built on. Aren't you supposed to defer to the people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about? And unless the Catholic Church goes after seafood and pork with the same vehemence as gay marriage, there's no grounds by which to call them the defenders of Biblical law. I mean, 10% at most ever have homosex. WAY more than half eat things that are forbidden.
@44: One, homosexuality doesn't have to be genetic to be innate. Don't pretend like you have the facts when you don't understand jack shit about biology.
Two, you keep saying that homosexuality is inherently bad, when you have yet to supply one deleterious effect caused by homosexuality.
@48: People write to Dan Savage looking for advice on how to have fulfilling and worthwhile sex/romantic lives. People write to you...oh wait, they don't. Dan's a respected authority on his topic, and you're some schmo with a computer and a huge gay chip on his shoulder. And you think you can give better sex advice than him? You oughtta go into business and take Dan's job, if that's the case!
@49: Most cultures also historically had a concept of slavery. Hell, many cultures (such as the Spartans) were built around the institutions! Should we design our society around what the majority of cultures did in the past? Or should we maybe use our brains and decide for ourselves what makes sense to do?
Also, please explain to me how allowing gays to get gay married will destroy marriage for the rest of us. I plan to marry a particular woman. My cousin, who is a lesbian, is in a partnership with another woman. (Their sons are doing great, thanks for asking). HOW THE ASS will her marriage affect mine? Seriously, man, HOW DOES THAT WORK?
The ONLY WAY gay marriage will affect me is that I'll have more weddings to go to.
TL;DR: Tell me two things, Seattleblues:
1. How is homosexuality innately detrimental? (Don't just tell me that it is, tell me HOW it is.)
2. How is gay marriage going to affect me, a straight dude, as far as my marriage goes? (Again, provide some specific reasons.)
More...
@39: The issue at hand is that your idea of what is sin is pretty much irrelevant. As is your idea of what society is built on. Aren't you supposed to defer to the people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about? And unless the Catholic Church goes after seafood and pork with the same vehemence as gay marriage, there's no grounds by which to call them the defenders of Biblical law. I mean, 10% at most ever have homosex. WAY more than half eat things that are forbidden.
@44: One, homosexuality doesn't have to be genetic to be innate. Don't pretend like you have the facts when you don't understand jack shit about biology.
Two, you keep saying that homosexuality is inherently bad, when you have yet to supply one deleterious effect caused by homosexuality.
@48: People write to Dan Savage looking for advice on how to have fulfilling and worthwhile sex/romantic lives. People write to you...oh wait, they don't. Dan's a respected authority on his topic, and you're some schmo with a computer and a huge gay chip on his shoulder. And you think you can give better sex advice than him? You oughtta go into business and take Dan's job, if that's the case!
@49: Most cultures also historically had a concept of slavery. Hell, many cultures (such as the Spartans) were built around the institutions! Should we design our society around what the majority of cultures did in the past? Or should we maybe use our brains and decide for ourselves what makes sense to do?
Also, please explain to me how allowing gays to get gay married will destroy marriage for the rest of us. I plan to marry a particular woman. My cousin, who is a lesbian, is in a partnership with another woman. (Their sons are doing great, thanks for asking). HOW THE ASS will her marriage affect mine? Seriously, man, HOW DOES THAT WORK?
The ONLY WAY gay marriage will affect me is that I'll have more weddings to go to.
TL;DR: Tell me two things, Seattleblues:
1. How is homosexuality innately detrimental? (Don't just tell me that it is, tell me HOW it is.)
2. How is gay marriage going to affect me, a straight dude, as far as my marriage goes? (Again, provide some specific reasons.)
58
@42) I don't see any part of the letter that says the bishops or the petitioners must get a pastor's permission. Rather, the bishops say they have already approved petitioning in churches and have sent pastors "information" about the signature drive in their parishes. I suppose it's possible that the "information" gives them a the chance to decline, but I don't see a "built-in out" in this letter and neither did the Catholics I spoke to.
59
Man, Seattleblues been hitting the cocaine! I like your gusto, but that's about it. No, check that - too much gusto. You're like a snake who goes away and hides in some tree or under some rock, and everyone thinks you're gone, but then you're favorite prey - gay marriage - goes by, and suddenly there you are, all over the place.
Two things:
a.) Your actions drive people away from your religion. Doesn't "bearing witness" mean that you're supposed to reach out to people, not alienate yourself from them? Would Jesus type what you type? More importantly, do you care?
b.) You should do some research on the history of the so-called institution of marriage. Here's a hint: The idealized romantic fantasy of marriage as a commitment borne out of love since the dawn of mankind is just that. Use your Google to get you started.
Two things:
a.) Your actions drive people away from your religion. Doesn't "bearing witness" mean that you're supposed to reach out to people, not alienate yourself from them? Would Jesus type what you type? More importantly, do you care?
b.) You should do some research on the history of the so-called institution of marriage. Here's a hint: The idealized romantic fantasy of marriage as a commitment borne out of love since the dawn of mankind is just that. Use your Google to get you started.
60
Just a note about a pet peeve of mine. The unrestrained use of the word "Satan" needs to stop when it is being used as an individual identifier. Satan is NOT an individual and should not be used as an identifier for an individual. It is more of a job title than anything else. If you mean the Arch-Angel Lucifer just type in Lucifer. I'm pretty sure most readers are going to know you mean the Arch-Angel and not some guy on the street (tho of course Lucifer could indeed be walking around on the street in some form). Why you would want to slander an Arch-Angel is beyond me but feel free to do so.
For those who are going to claim that he is a fallen angel and king of hell please point to where in the bible it says that. Read carefully since NOTHING in "The Revelation of St. John" has happened yet. At this time He is still the right hand of God and (per revelation) by far the most powerful of the Thrones. Personally I would think that slandering (and libeling) a Divine being (the angels are the children of God which makes them Divine beings) when you are merely a created being (if you believe the creation story) to be a good way to NOT qualify for heaven. For those who want to point out how "EVIL" Lucifer is by talking about the trials of Job please take note that God himself ordered that done and directed what was done to Job. So obviously if the trials of Job were evil then God is the source of the evil. And since The Revelation stuff hasn't happened yet he hasn't been declared evil by God yet either.
Think about it or not if you will, just remember that if Lucifer tries to tempt you then it is under the order of the same God that supposedly supports free will by humans.
For those who are going to claim that he is a fallen angel and king of hell please point to where in the bible it says that. Read carefully since NOTHING in "The Revelation of St. John" has happened yet. At this time He is still the right hand of God and (per revelation) by far the most powerful of the Thrones. Personally I would think that slandering (and libeling) a Divine being (the angels are the children of God which makes them Divine beings) when you are merely a created being (if you believe the creation story) to be a good way to NOT qualify for heaven. For those who want to point out how "EVIL" Lucifer is by talking about the trials of Job please take note that God himself ordered that done and directed what was done to Job. So obviously if the trials of Job were evil then God is the source of the evil. And since The Revelation stuff hasn't happened yet he hasn't been declared evil by God yet either.
Think about it or not if you will, just remember that if Lucifer tries to tempt you then it is under the order of the same God that supposedly supports free will by humans.
61
Deflecting attention to us "disordered homosexuals" is a great way to forget the 600,000 children in foster care, dead beat dads, infidelity, adultery, domestic violence, child abuse, rape, abandoment, abortion, divorce, teen pregnancy and HIV in the heterosexual community. Gee sure wish I was straight
62
Kosher eating is an millenniums old institution. If you believe that eating pork and shell fish is a sin, that is a reason for you not to eat it. You don't get to ban shell fish and pork for everyone else.
If you believe that homosexuality and gay marriage is a sin, that is a reason for you not to engage in it. You don't get to ban homosexuality and gay marriage for everyone else.
If you believe that homosexuality and gay marriage is a sin, that is a reason for you not to engage in it. You don't get to ban homosexuality and gay marriage for everyone else.
64
I'm confused. I am a recovering Catholic ... I thought if an organization actively participated in the political process it could not have tax exempt status... This action on the part of the catholic church shoould remove them from that status and let them start paying thei share for the price of democracy..... Shouldn't it?
66
@60: "Satan" comes from the Hebrew word "ha-satan", which means "adversary" or "opposer". Judaism has no concept of a fallen angel, as angels are incapable of doing evil. "ha-satan" is an angel filling the role of prosecutor or accuser in a celestial court.
67
Hey, Seattleblues, guess what?
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!
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!
69
@58
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.
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.
70
@52
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?
More...
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?
71
@62
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.'
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.'
72
@70
"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?
"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?
73
71, War on marriage and family? Has your marriage or family been attacked in some way? Is your bond with your spouse and children weakened because gay people can get married? Is your marriage only valuable to you if you can prevent gay people from also getting married?
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.
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.
74
Seattleblues, you candy-ass roody-poo, I'm still waiting on your examples of:
-how exactly homosexuality is inherently detrimental
-how exactly gay people getting gay married will affect your marriage
-how exactly homosexuality is inherently detrimental
-how exactly gay people getting gay married will affect your marriage
75
@57
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.
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.
76
Quickly-
@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.
@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.
77
I had no idea that good heterosexual marriages were being destroyed by my perverted, immoral, and (soon to be legal) same-sex relationship. Ah well, I'll try not to lose too much sleep over it! Long live Satan!
78
76, Heart disease is a physical ailment. Homosexuality is not an sickness, mental disorder, nor is it an addiction. Eating properly will not cause you psychological harm that "reparative therapies" cause gay people to suffer.
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.
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.
79
@76
"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?
"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?
80
@76: It doesn't matter who the burden of proof is on, really. You have claimed many many times that homosexuality is inherently detrimental and that allowing gay marriage will destroy straight marriage. And never have you offered any evidence to support either assertion.
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.
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.
81
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.
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.
83
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.
84
It's time to closely watch these assholes (not that i'm volunteering to go anywhere near a Catholic church). But if *any* of them are found to be collecting signatures for a political campaign, it's time to start taxing them like any business. In fact, they've gotten away with this shit for far too long, thanks to spineless politicians who need to hear that we are fed up with these tactics.
85
I assume that Seattleblues is against child abuse, and against covering it up or making excuses for it.
If that's so, then his praise of the Catholic church is intellectually dishonest.
If that's so, then his praise of the Catholic church is intellectually dishonest.
86
"As for dispensing sexual advice, I have contempt for that whole field of endeavor."
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 :)
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 :)
88
I applaud and support Fr. Michael Ryan and Fr. John Whitney for not allowing these petition signatures to be collected in their parishes. Not all Catholics are anti-gay and marriage should be seen as a life-long commitment between two loving people, regardless of sexual orientation.
89
Thread about gay marriage
Seattle Blues--The end is nigh!
Everyone else--Citation needed
Seattle Blues-- *crickets*
Seattle Blues--The end is nigh!
Everyone else--Citation needed
Seattle Blues-- *crickets*
90
Political petitions do not belong in Churches. I am appalled that the Archbishop has chosen to align himself with the very right wing group calling for the repeal of the
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.
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.
91
Here is another so called religious leader who is miss using his authority and power to abuse his faith community. He should either apologize or resign for he is neither moral or a leader. Fr. Edward J. Dietrich
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Not A Prude... And Not Just Not That... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (91) RSS